INNOVATING UNDER PRESSURE 

THE STORY OF THE 2009 RECOVERY ACT 

SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT INITIATIVE: 

CHICAGO, DETROIT, INDIANAPOLIS & MARION COUNTY, 

PHOENIX & MARICOPA COUNTY 

June 2010 

Principal Investigators 

Susan P. Curnan, Director, Center for Youth and Communities 

Andrew B. Hahn, Director, Sillerman Center for the 

 Advancement of Philanthropy 

Case Study Leaders and co-Authors 

 Lawrence N. Bailis 

Joseph Frees 

 Christopher Kingsley 

 Lisa A. LaCava 

Susan Lanspery 

Alan L. Melchior 

Erika L. Moldow 

Prepared by 

The Center for Youth and Communities 

Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

Brandeis University 

Waltham, Massachusetts 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management ii

INNOVATING UNDER PRESSURE

THE STORY OF THE 2009 RECOVERY ACT 

SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT INITIATIVE: 

CHICAGO, DETROIT, INDIANAPOLIS & MARION COUNTY, 

PHOENIX & MARICOPA COUNTY

 

U.S. Department of Labor/Employment and Training Administration 

Grant Agreement #:MI-19096-09-60-A-25 

Brandeis University 

 CFDA#: 17.262 

Submitted to: 

U.S. Department of Labor/Employment and Training Administration 

Office of Policy Development, Evaluation and Research 

Rm N5641 

200 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20210 

Project Officer: Wayne Gordon 

Submitted by: 

The Center for Youth and Communities 

Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

Brandeis University 

415 South Street 

Waltham, MA 02453 

Telephone: 781-736-3771 (Office) 

Fax: 781-736-3773 

cyc@brandeis.edu 

 Principal Investigators 

Susan P. Curnan, Director, Center for Youth and Communities 

 Andrew B. Hahn, Director, Sillerman Center for the 

 Advancement of Philanthropy 

Case Study Leaders and co-Authors 

 Lawrence N. Bailis 

Joseph Frees 

 Christopher Kingsley 

Lisa A. LaCava 

Susan Lanspery 

Alan L. Melchior 

Erika L. Moldow 

 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Brandeis University study team would like to thank the many individuals who 

contributed to the development and completion of this study and report. 

Staff at the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, in 

Washington, DC provided valuable input and guidance throughout the duration of this study. 

We especially appreciate the support and advice of Ray Uhalde, Senior Advisor at the time 

the study was designed; Wayne Gordon, from the Office of Policy Development, Evaluation 

and Research; and Gregg Weltz, Evan Rosenberg, Sara Hastings, and Charles Modiano from 

the Division of Youth Services. They provided valuable input and support from the very 

start of the study through a series of briefings and critical review of the findings and earlier 

drafts. 

Most importantly, this study would not have been possible without the commitment and 

generosity of leadership teams, staff members, employers, and youth practitioners who 

participated in the four featured communities. They took the time to share their 

experiences and respond to requests for information during a period of intense activity and 

demands from many stakeholders in the workforce investment community. Key 

stakeholders from the communities also took the time to review early drafts of the case 

studies and hosted and/or participated in formal briefings at Youth Summits in Chicago, 

Dallas, and Detroit. 

Contributors from the four featured communities are acknowledged in each case study. 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management iv

ABSTRACT

On February 17, 2009, President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) into law, providing $1.2 billion in targeted funding for the 

workforce investment system to generate employment and training opportunities for 

economically disadvantaged youth nationwide. Congress and the U.S. Department of Labor 

encouraged states and local workforce investment boards to use the funds to create 

meaningful work experiences for these young people in summer 2009. 

This study documents the implementation of the ARRA summer youth employment initiative 

in four featured communities. Brandeis University conducted interviews and site visits over 

a two-week period in each community and developed case studies describing the 

recessionary challenges and strategies in the four communities during summer 2009: 

Chicago, Illinois; Detroit, Michigan; Indianapolis and Marion County, Indiana; and Phoenix 

and Maricopa County, Arizona. These four communities received an infusion of more than 

$37 million and provided an estimated 16,650 summer jobs for low-income and 

disadvantaged youth. 

This report describes the local context for implementation, provides insight into specific 

assets and innovations that were used to achieve the community goals, and identifies 

elements of best practices and lessons that may inform future summer youth employment 

initiatives. 
DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training 

Administration, Office of Policy Development, Evaluation and Research by The Center for 

Youth and Communities and the Sillerman Center for the Advancement of Philanthropy, 

Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, under Grant 

Agreement # MI-19096-09-60-A-25. The views expressed are those of the authors and 

should not be attributed to the U.S. Department of Labor, nor does mention of trade names, 

commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement of same by the U.S. Government. 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management v
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

INNOVATING UNDER PRESSURE

THE STORY OF THE 2009 RECOVERY ACT 

SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT INITIATIVE: 

CHICAGO, DETROIT, INDIANAPOLIS & MARION COUNTY, 

PHOENIX & MARICOPA COUNTY 

CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

FULL REPORT 

PART 1

I. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1-2

A. Historical Context 

B. Organization of the Report 

II. Overview of the Study............................................................................................. 3-5

A. Objectives and Methodology 

B. Study Sites 

III. Key Findings: Leading Best Practices and 

Management Innovations .................................................................................... 5-15

A. New Operating Structures: Mission Driven and Results Oriented Leadership 

B. Strengthened Public-Private Partnerships 

C. Meaningful Work and Learning for Youth 

D. Continuous Improvement 

E. Responsiveness to Local Needs and Strengths 

IV. Summary of Common Challenges.................................................................. 15-16

A. Eligibility 

B. Funding/Cash Flow 

C. Job Matching 

D. Assessment and Reporting 

E. Green Jobs 

V. The Main Ingredients............................................................................. 16-17

A. Leadership Trumps All 

B. Cross-Sector Partnerships are Necessary 

C. Incorporation of Youth Development Principles Adds Quality and Skills 

D. Alternate Pools of Money and Flexible Lines of Credit are Helpful 

E. Think Big: Consider the Role of Work and Learning in Preparing Youth for Postsecondary Education, Work, and Life. 

PART 2

VI. Case Studies 

Chicago, Illinois...................................................................................................... 19-41 

Detroit, Michigan................................................................................................... 42-61

Indianapolis and Marion County, Indiana ........................................... 62-87

Phoenix and Maricopa County, Arizona................................................ 88-107
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On February 17, 2009, President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) into law, providing $1.2 billion in targeted funding for the 

workforce investment system to generate employment and training opportunities for 

economically disadvantaged youth nationwide. Congress and the U.S. Department of Labor 

(USDOL) encouraged states and local workforce investment boards to use the funds to 

create meaningful work experiences for these young people in summer 2009. 

This study documents the implementation of the ARRA summer youth employment initiative 

in four featured communities: Chicago, Illinois; Detroit, Michigan; Indianapolis and Marion 

County, Indiana; and Phoenix and Maricopa County, Arizona. Brandeis University conducted 

interviews and site visits over a two-week period in each community and developed case 

studies describing the recessionary challenges and strategies in the four communities during 

summer 2009. These four communities received an infusion of more than $37 million and 

rose to the occasion by innovating under pressure, planning and learning from mistakes, 

and seizing the opportunity to put more than 16,650 young people to work. This is one of 

two studies that USDOL funded to document the summer 2009 experience in local 

communities.1

This report describes the local context for implementation, provides insight into specific 

assets and innovations that were used to achieve the community goals, identifies elements 

of best practices that may inform future summer youth employment programs and related 

initiatives, highlights common challenges, offers ingredients for success, and draws 

attention to some lessons learned. 

The Four Communities 

Their Experience. Although three of the four communities had maintained modest publicly 

and privately funded summer youth employment programs, the ARRA funding represented 

the first major infusion of Federal funds for summer youth employment in over a decade. 

Institutional memory related to the former Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP) 

under the Job Training Partnership Act2 (JTPA) was often limited. However, each 

community had some experiential assets. For example, the large scale of Chicago’s efforts 

to continue summer youth employment efforts without Federal funding gave them a base of 

relationships and knowledge on which to build quickly: youth-serving organizations and 

agencies were already working together on many levels and had developed a Youth Ready 

Chicago website that could be used in the 2009 summer youth employment initiative 

(SYEI). In Detroit, recent citywide efforts by a core group of leaders to create the Detroit 

Youth Employment Consortium and the Youth Development Commission provided a strong 

base for the 2009 SYEI. Detroit also had the advantage of local individuals with institutional 

memory about the 1990s SYEP. Phoenix and Maricopa County were able to build on recent 

progress toward greater collaboration and take advantage of local leaders’ institutional 

memory regarding the SYEP and youth development. Indianapolis and Marion County did 

not have the advantage of local institutional memory or recent SYEP experience, but 

 

1

 The other study is Reinvesting in America’s Youth: Lessons from the 2009 Recovery Act Summer Youth 

Employment Initiative (Mathematica Policy Research, February 2010), by J. Bellotti, L. Rosenberg, S. Sattar, A. M. 

Esposito, and J. Ziegler. 

2

 The Job Training Partnership Act, a US Federal law passed October 13, 1982, was the Federal job training 

legislation before it was replaced by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

2

benefited from a strong workforce investment board and a commitment from the Mayor’s 

office. 

The Recessionary Context. Each community started the summer with local challenges as 

well as assets. One important point is that in all four, the summer 2009 employment 

situation for both youth and adults was much worse than in prior years. The Center for 

Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University reports that national teen joblessness 

increased by 16% during the period from 2000 – 2009, to 29.2%. Young people with limited 

education and from low-income families had a 60% labor underutilization rate.3 In addition, 

while Detroit’s economic situation was the most dire, all four communities were 

experiencing varying degrees of adversity, such as foreclosures, local industry deterioration, 

and layoffs and furloughs for public employees (some of whom were needed to create a 

successful SYEI). At the same time, all four communities had many assets – including 

committed and competent leaders, entrepreneurial spirit, extraordinary willingness to work 

together, high energy, a culture of learning and continuous improvement, and young people 

eager to work. 

Their Goals and Priorities. Like the 20 study sites in the USDOL/Employment and 

Training Administration (ETA) evaluation conducted by Mathematica (see Footnote 1), the 

four featured communities in the Brandeis study shared three primary goals: 

1. Serving as many youth as possible. 

2. Spending the ARRA funds quickly and wisely with transparency and accountability. 

3. Providing meaningful summer experiences to participating youth. 

ASSETS AND INNOVATIONS 

Beyond those goals, driven by the ARRA and ETA guidance, each of the four communities 

tied the SYEI to a local vision and built on existing and new partnerships to carry it out. 

 Public-Private Collaboration and Leadership: In Detroit, ARRA funds supported work and 

learning experiences for more than 7,000 youth. Three emerging regional industries 

were targeted for development and placement: green jobs, healthcare and the creative 

arts. Programs provided a positive youth development approach coupled with integrated 

work and learning for many of the young workers. 

 City Hub & Spoke Model: Chicago brought together a wide range of people to work on 

the SYEI. Through this “all hands on deck” approach they developed a creative array of 

summer work experiences. Chicago’s “Hub” and “Spokes” model (the Hubs were 

organizations that recruited and managed the Spokes, which were the SYEI worksites) 

helped them operate more efficiently on their way to serving nearly 8,000 youth. 

 Partnership, Work & Learning: In Indianapolis and Marion County, planners responded to 

high youth unemployment and low high school graduation rates. In a strong partnership 

with several schools, they designed a program in which most of the 645 youth 

participants attended class for half a day and worked for the other half of the day. 

 City-County Coordination: Phoenix and Maricopa County planners brought city and 

county workforce development together and established an accessible SYEI that offered 

 

3

 Sum, Andrew et al. “Labor Underutilization Impacts of the Great Depression of 2007-2009.” The labor 

underutilization rate includes people who are unemployed and underemployed as well as those who would like to 

work but are not actively looking (sometimes called discouraged workers, the hidden unemployed, or the labor 

force reserve). 
a range of jobs to 1,140 youth, was able to match participant interests and jobs in many 

cases, and hired a set of line staff (career advisors and case managers) who worked 

closely with youth and worksites to enhance the SYEI experience for both. 

BEST PRACTICES AND LESSONS 

In all four communities, leadership teams took up the challenge to enhance and expand 

their summer programs and tied the opportunity to local strategic goals. In contrast to 

thinking of the 2009 SYEI as a one-time infusion for summer jobs, they used it as an 

opportunity to build out their vision for the healthy development of youth and communities. 

Dedicated, smart, hardworking employment and training professionals, community leaders, 

and partners established new operating structures; developed and strengthened 

public/private partnerships; involved youth in meaningful work and learning experiences 

that incorporated best practice principles from youth development; and demonstrated a 

commitment to continuous quality improvement (using data, learning from mistakes, and 

focusing on quality) on their way to providing thousands of young people with opportunities 

to work, earn, and learn. 

A. New Operating Structures for Results Oriented Leadership 

Under the auspices of the Department of Family and Support Services (DFSS), Chicago 

created a Hub and Spokes network of program providers and worksites that included 

private employers, public agencies, nonprofits, and the city’s major cultural institutions 

(the Hubs were organizations that recruited and managed the Spokes, which were the 

SYEI worksites). Encouraged and supported by the newly formed Youth Employment 

Consortium, Detroit established a new collaborative approach using a strong 

partnership between the Detroit Workforce Development Department and nonprofit 

intermediaries. Phoenix and Maricopa County Workforce Connection leadership 

developed a coordinated regional strategy that provided consistency across the city, 

suburbs, and rural areas for the first time. With strong leadership from the 

Indianapolis Private Industry Council, Indianapolis and Marion County developed a 

network of contractors, including several schools, to create a program explicitly linking 

education and work. 

B. Public-Private Partnerships

Detroit philanthropic organizations provided the spark, strategy and political will to 

develop a citywide, cross-sector partnership approach for youth development and 

youth employment. Chicago’s summer programs built on an existing effort to create a 

comprehensive citywide youth development strategy involving the city’s youth 

employment programs, public schools, housing and park district agencies, business 

groups, and the citywide after-school program. Indianapolis and Marion County 

expanded its network of partners with a commitment to workforce development, 

youth, and education. Phoenix and Maricopa County established a new level of citycounty coordination in order to streamline key processes and reach communities that 

had never participated in summer youth employment activities. 

C. Meaningful Work and Learning for Youth 

The concepts of meaningful work and learning were reflected in policies and 

approaches in all four communities, and all four communities had programs that 

provided rich work-based learning opportunities and reflected the elements of high 

quality youth employment and youth development programs: meaningful work, 

connections to learning, involvement of caring adults, opportunities for leadership, age 

and stage appropriate assistance, and access to a system of supports and 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

3
opportunities. Chicago’s recent experience with large-scale summer youth employment 

activities enhanced local commitment to quality worksites, helping to ensure that a 

number of jobs included both meaningful and learning-rich work. In Detroit, the youth 

development focus of the pre-existing Detroit Works for Kids initiative provided a 

foundation of commitment and knowledge that ensured attention to, and creativity 

about, quality work experiences. In Indianapolis and Marion County, the educational 

component of the 2009 SYEI added a learning dimension to the experience of all youth 

participants, and some worksites offered outstanding opportunities for meaningful 

work and learning. Phoenix and Maricopa County also came to the 2009 SYEI with a 

commitment to youth development principles, and were able not only to generate a 

range of worksite options, but also to provide case managers and career advisors who 

worked directly with both youth and worksites to ensure more meaningful, learningrich work experiences.

D. Continuous Improvement

Leadership and staff in all four communities were committed to “getting it right.” Staff 

across the communities demonstrated resilience, determination, and a willingness to 

learn from experience. Detroit was committed to a strategic focus on new 

partnerships within the context of regional industries, including health care, green jobs 

and the creative arts, as well as a commitment to total quality management and best 

practice in youth development. Chicago and its Hubs made constant adjustments to 

meet the challenges of documenting eligibility and worked diligently to apply best 

practice in a variety of settings. Indianapolis and Marion County worked to design 

programs that met employer and local labor market needs and connected work and 

learning. Phoenix and Maricopa County applied a learning organization approach to 

improving program quality and operations and applied best practice in integrated 

project-based learning. 

CHALLENGES 

All of the communities struggled at least to some extent with certifying large numbers of 

youth as eligible, addressing budget issues, matching youth with jobs, reporting, and 

creating new opportunities in green industries. These challenges were magnified by the 

issues of timing and time. 

A. Eligibility 

Three of the four communities faced serious struggles with the need to document WIA 

eligibility for thousands of young people in a short time frame. The process was made 

more challenging by the fact that eligibility for some common programs aimed at lowincome families (e.g., National Free/Reduced Price Lunch program) could not serve as 

proxies for WIA eligibility. Eligibility issues often meant delays for youth ready to start 

summer jobs (and for their employers) as well as less staff time devoted to program 

monitoring and technical assistance. These issues may have served as barriers to 

enrollment, since the youth most in need may have been least able to provide the 

required documentation. The fourth community (Indianapolis and Marion County) had 

fewer documentation problems – possibly due in part to a state rule allowing selfattestation of income. 

B. Funding/Cash Flow 

Nonprofit organizations in every community had to move quickly to raise funds and 

create new (or extend existing) lines of credit in order to meet the up-front costs of 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

4
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

5

staffing and payroll for large numbers of summer workers while waiting for 

reimbursement. While some communities (notably Detroit) were able to create 

funding pools and provide short-term loans, and Chicago’s Commissioner of DFSS 

committed funds to cover disallowed costs, the SYEIs’ financial demands limited the 

participation of smaller community-based organizations. 

C. Job Matching 

In all four communities, the short time frame and the challenges of documenting 

eligibility limited the opportunities for local programs to carefully and consciously 

match participant interests to jobs. There were some successes (e.g., through 

Chicago’s and Detroit’s central application database), but in many cases eligible youth 

were simply placed in available jobs. 

D. Assessment and Reporting 

The rapid start-up also meant that work readiness assessment, data management, and 

reporting systems were often unable to handle the volume of data to be entered; the 

numbers of young people to be assessed; or the need to utilize the data out of existing 

systems for summer reporting. In some cases this was exacerbated by outdated 

and/or inadequate software (e.g., in Phoenix and Maricopa County). 

E. Green Jobs 

While all of the communities were able to establish some “green” jobs, numbers were 

limited and the jobs often represented work in traditional green industries (agriculture 

and forestry vs. solar panel production, for example). Detroit offers the best example 

of developing green jobs through a private sector partnership devoted to the 

“Greening of Detroit.” 

THE MAIN INGREDIENTS 

While the study yields many reflections about the SYEI, five main ingredients for success 

stand out: 

A. Leadership trumps all.

 Leaders in these four communities were strong, resilient risk takers who shared 

three core management qualities: mission focus, results orientation, and a 

commitment to monitoring for continuous improvement. 

B. Cross-sector partnerships are necessary.

 Adaptive capacity4 helped the four communities to make the most of this 

opportunity. The Federal government might consider providing assistance to increase 

community capacity to build the local leadership and partnerships needed to respond 

effectively to new and demanding circumstances as they arise. 

C. Incorporation of youth development principles adds quality and skills. 

 With so many youth involved in so many communities across the United States, an 

opportunity exists to engage and educate youth on other critical life and work skills 

 

4

Adaptive capacity is the ability of an organization to ask, listen, reflect, and adapt in a changing environment. 

Christine Letts, High Performance Nonprofit Organizations (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1999). 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

6

issues (e.g., financial literacy, health). This aligns well with broader youth 

development goals. 

D. Alternate pools of money and flexible lines of credit are helpful. 

Communities with such resources (particularly Chicago and Detroit) had important 

flexibility with respect to moving quickly, paying youth, and cash flow. 

E. Think big: Consider the role of work and learning in preparing youth for 

post-secondary education, work, and life.

The summer of 2009 re-opens the door to broader links between employment and 

training and education – “year-round summer” with creative project-based and workbased learning for academic credit has proven to be a valuable pathway for young 

people struggling in traditional classrooms.5 The 2009 SYEI also suggests that 

investing in the transition to post-secondary education and credentials can lead to 

valuable outcomes for older youth. 

LESSONS LEARNED 

All communities turned learning under pressure into an opportunity. They made 

mistakes and miscalculations and faced unknowns, but these led to lessons learned. As 

noted earlier, each of the communities strove for continuous improvement - their 

philosophy seemed to be that mistakes and challenges represented learning opportunities. 

Lotteries, eligibility events, full-court press attention to payroll problems, debit cards 

instead of checks, vouchers, a “rolling start” for enrollment, and techniques for developing 

“instant handbooks” were just a few of the ways communities dealt with serious challenges. 

The following lessons were culled from conversations about what the communities would do 

differently next time, or what advice they would give other communities embarking on an 

SYEI: 

 Focus on the quality and training of worksite supervisors to enrich the youths’ 

learning experience. All communities made efforts to ensure supervisory and 

worksite quality. For example, Phoenix and Maricopa County developed and 

implemented a deliberate process of orientation and training, including a worksite 

supervisor’s handbook, and hired staff (called career advisors or case managers) 

whose responsibilities included worksite monitoring and support. With a relatively 

large number of such staff, communication with worksites was relatively frequent. 

 

5

Evaluation of the Educational Component of The Summer Youth Employment and Training Program. December 

1998. Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates and Brandeis University, for the Office of Policy and Research, 

Employment and Training Administration, U.S, Department of Labor, Washington, DC. (DOL Contract No: K-4687-

4-00-80-30). 

Technical Assistance Guide: Providing Educational Service in the Summer Youth Employment and Training 

Program, 1998 Research and Evaluation Report Series 98-B. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training 

Administration, Washington, DC. Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates. 

A Primer on Improving the Quality of Academic Enrichment in Summer Youth Employment Programs, 1993. 

Prepared by Brandeis University as part of the Youth Research and Technical Assistance Project sponsored by the 

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Washington, DC. 

Dilemmas in Youth Employment Programming: Findings from the Youth Research and Technical Assistance Project. 

Research and Evaluation Report Series 92-C. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 

Washington, DC, 1992. Prepared by Brandeis University and Public/Private Ventures. 

A Synthesis Report on The Summer Beginnings National Work and Learning Network. 1995. Prepared as part of the 

Youth Research and Technical Assistance Project sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and 

Training Administration, Washington, DC, 1992. Prepared by Brandeis University and Public/Private Ventures. 

“Work Based Practices,” in School-To-Work, Arnold H. Packer, Marion Pines. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education, 1996. 
Other communities struggled more with worksite and supervisor preparation, 

support, and monitoring. For example, in Chicago, informants at both DFSS and the 

Hubs said that time spent addressing eligibility issues took time away from quality 

assurance and worksite monitoring. In Indianapolis and Marion County, the 

organization that had contracted to monitor worksites had planned for 50 worksites, 

but the actual number was more than 200. Informants in all communities, however, 

strongly believed that doing more to promote high-quality supervision would have 

directly enhanced the quality of the youths’ experience. 

 Prepare for creative financing options, including covering unintended costs to 

worksites. In Chicago, the DFSS Commissioner authorized staff to streamline the 

eligibility review process, and, where necessary, to allow participants to begin 

working while eligibility determination was still underway (with completion of 

necessary paperwork to follow); she would cover disallowed costs with other funds. 

The Detroit program had the benefit of a fund established by the Skillman 

Foundation to cover unexpected costs and short-term loans. The Phoenix and 

Maricopa County leaders crafted agreements that standardized the rates of pay for 

youth and also developed a process through which agencies sent projected 

expenditures to the city and county in advance of payrolls so that checks could be 

processed based upon the projections. The projected figures provided cash in the 

bank to cover the real payroll; differences between real and projected payroll figures 

could be adjusted in subsequent pay periods. 

 Streamline eligibility determination, assessment, and orientation. Two communities 

(Phoenix and Maricopa County and Chicago) used the promising practice of eligibility 

events for youth. These worked especially well in Phoenix and Maricopa County but 

both communities would try them again (Chicago leaders compiled a list of 

suggested improvements to help theirs go better in the future.) Indianapolis and 

Marion County had the least problematic experience with determining youth 

eligibility. Two factors that may have contributed to a smoother process were a 

state rule allowing self-attestation of income and the fact that they had a relatively 

smaller number of youth applications to process. 

 Create a seamless infrastructure for data management, payroll options, and other 

critical processes. Despite employing various creative strategies, such as using debit 

cards instead of checks in Indianapolis and Marion County, all of the communities 

experienced data management and payroll problems that affected their ability to 

ensure quality. Data entry alone was a serious problem for most of the four 

communities. For example, the Illinois data management system that the Chicago 

program had to use was old and regularly crashed. Staff entered data on evenings 

and weekends (when the system was less overloaded) and the program used interns 

and hired temporary data entry workers. In Indianapolis and Marion County, the 

program’s multiple, separate data systems meant that there was no single database 

on participants and activities. Because of the dysfunctions of the Phoenix and 

Maricopa County older, time-consuming, and very limited system, many SYEI 

providers developed dual information systems, a level of decentralization that made 

it difficult to analyze program-wide data. 

 Consider vouchers for transportation and clothing for participating youth. The youth 

who are the target of the SYEI often lack good access to transportation and 

professional clothing. Transportation to worksites in particular was a problem in all 

four communities, especially when jobs that would interest youth were not located 

near their homes. Phoenix and Maricopa County’s voucher system was very helpful 

in this regard, enabling some youth to take jobs that were good matches and 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

7
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

8

enabling other youth simply to take a job. Many of the young people interviewed 

said that these supports were very important, and that access to a summer job 

without supports would have proved inadequate. 

 Match jobs and educational offerings to participants’ skills, interests, and locations. 

The four communities found that their lofty vision of “great matches” quickly turned 

to the reality of getting kids to work – communities couldn’t job match as much as 

they would have liked. The strategies used by the four communities were a good 

start. For example, applications included a place for youth to list preferences and 

career interests, and all four communities developed mechanisms to help match 

youth and jobs by location (to minimize transportation problems). However, all four 

communities considered job matching a critical factor in youth success and wanted to 

improve their job matching ability. 

 Acknowledge that no one can go it alone. 

A key element of success in all four communities was the presence of pre-existing 

collaborative relationships on which to build. For example, in Chicago, the Out-ofSchool Time initiative leaders had already established the Youth Ready Chicago 

website, which provided a common portal and single point of entry for young people 

to apply for summer jobs and a single point of entry for employers looking for 

summer job applicants. In Detroit, the organization that was the chief strategist for 

the 2009 SYEI had come into being in 2008 as a direct outcome of ongoing 

collaborative efforts, stimulated by Skillman Foundation investments, to “create 

conditions where all children are safe, healthy, well-educated and prepared for 

adulthood.” This type of collaboration not only expands the resources available for 

implementation, but also strengthens and elevates the process of developing a 

vision. 

Forming internal collaborative working groups or teams to share the responsibility 

and establish an “all hands on deck” strategy also contributed to success in the four 

communities. All four communities demonstrated this level of collaboration. The 

Chicago and Detroit SYEI experiences were especially noteworthy in this regard. 

Thousands of young people and their communities used the 2009 SYEI as a springboard for 

the healthy development of youth and communities. Many youth directly benefited from the 

investment, and communities established credible cross-sector partnerships that hold the 

promise of continued investment. The four communities featured in this report 

accomplished most of their goals and learned valuable lessons to apply to future SYEIs. 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

1

PART 1 

I. INTRODUCTION

A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT 

In a global economy where the most important skill you can sell is your 

knowledge – a good education is no longer a pathway to opportunity – it’s a 

prerequisite. 

President Barack Obama, Address to Congress, February 25, 2009 

In February 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act (ARRA) into law, providing $1.2 billion in targeted funding for WIA youth activities, 

especially focusing on summer jobs for economically disadvantaged youth nationwide. 

The 2009 summer youth employment initiative (SYEI) under ARRA represented a major 

influx of funds and a significant challenge: how to design and roll out a summer jobs 

program in less than four months that could provide meaningful work and learning 

experiences for the nation’s youth and ideally cultivate more 21st century workforce 

skills as President Obama emphasized in his Address to Congress, just days after 

signing the ARRA, in February 2009. 

Of course, this is not the first time the Federal government has supported summer 

youth employment programs (SYEPs). Indeed, for more than three decades it funded 

large-scale SYEPs, serving close to 600,000 low-income youth each year in the 1990s. 

Previous studies by Brandeis University and others1 confirmed that when work and 

learning were combined in rigorous and creative ways on worksites and in classrooms, 

young people realized gains in math and reading and were better prepared for the 

transition to school. Indeed, the 1990s saw the emergence of USDOL demonstrations 

like “Summer Beginnings” and STEP which incorporated and tested best practices for 

contextualized project-based and work-based learning, implementation of SCANS skills 

and competencies,2 innovation in assessment strategies, and serious case management 

to provide supports and opportunities for young people and help benchmark their 

progress. 

 

1

Evaluation of the Educational Component of The Summer Youth Employment and Training Program. December 

1998. Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates and Brandeis University, for the Office of Policy and Research, 

Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC (DOL Contract No: K-4687-4-

00-80-30). 

Technical Assistance Guide: Providing Educational Service in the Summer Youth Employment and Training 

Program, 1998 Research and Evaluation Report Series 98-B. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training 

Administration, Washington, DC. Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates. 

A Primer on Improving the Quality of Academic Enrichment in Summer Youth Employment Programs, 1993. 

Prepared by Brandeis University as part of the Youth Research and Technical Assistance Project sponsored by the 

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Washington, DC. 

Dilemmas in Youth Employment Programming: Findings from the Youth Research and Technical Assistance Project. 

Research and Evaluation Report Series 92-C. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 

Washington, DC, 1992. Prepared by Brandeis University and Public/Private Ventures. 

A Synthesis Report on The Summer Beginnings National Work and Learning Network. 1995. Prepared as part of the 

Youth Research and Technical Assistance Project sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and 

Training Administration, Washington, DC, 1992. Prepared by Brandeis University and Public/Private Ventures. 

“Work Based Practices,” in School-To-Work, Arnold H. Packer, Marion Pines. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education, 1996. 2

A broad list of academic and workplace skills developed by the Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary 

Skills (SCANS). 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

2

In other words, under prior workforce development acts3, summer programs not only 

provided jobs, but because of the continuity of Federal funding, states and communities 

also had the mandate and opportunity to develop an effective infrastructure for 

managing, implementing, and evaluating the large scale programs. 

While some communities had maintained modest publicly and privately funded summer 

youth employment activities over the years, the ARRA funding represented the first 

major infusion of Federal funding in over a decade. For workforce development 

professionals and their partners in education, business, government, and the nonprofit 

sector, the 2009 SYEI called for a new, or renewed, way of doing business – an 

opportunity to set up or strengthen the management infrastructure, partnerships, 

systems, and programs that would be needed to provide meaningful summer jobs for 

the nation’s youth. 

Because of the unique history of summer jobs programs and the presence or absence of 

institutional memory, this has been something of a “re-learning” and experimental year 

for summer youth employment practitioners and policymakers – and by any measure, a 

challenging one where entrepreneurs and leaders in bureaucracy had to work together 

at breakneck speed to realize results. 

The 2009 SYEI offered a substantial challenge to the workforce development “field” in 

Chicago, Detroit, Indianapolis and Marion County, and Phoenix and Maricopa County, 

and they rose to the occasion by innovating under pressure, planning and learning from 

mistakes, and seizing the opportunity to put more than 16,650 young people to work. 

This study zooms in on these four communities and their experiences in the 2009 SYEI. 

Each community started the summer with local challenges as well as assets. The case 

studies also discuss these in detail. One important point is that in all four communities, 

the summer 2009 employment situation was much worse for teenagers (as well as their 

parents and other adults) than in prior years. The SYEI was very appealing in this 

context. It would offer needed summer jobs for teens that would not be available 

otherwise: as a large YouthWorks Indy employer commented, “We wouldn’t have been 

able to hire kids. Older people are coming back in the job market for jobs that normally 

go to teenagers. YouthWorks Indy provided the only way these kids got summer 

employment.” In addition, however, and equally important to many leaders in the four 

communities, the SYEI would allow more youth to be around working adults, an 

especially critical exposure with so many adults out of work – especially in the 

neighborhoods in which eligible youth lived. 

B. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT 

Part 1 of the report provides an overview of the study, then presents key findings 

focusing on operating structures, partnerships, meaningful work and learning, 

continuous improvement, and responsiveness to local needs and strengths. After a 

summary of common challenges, Part 1 concludes with a summary of the “main 

ingredients” necessary for success. Part 2 presents in-depth case studies of the four 

communities which detail the recessionary conditions and community assets, and 

recovery and reinvestment actions in each community; they also highlight best practices 

and management innovations. Each case is a unique representation of what happened 

in the 2009 SYEI. Though the protocol was standard for each community, the story 

unfolded differently, as reflected in the presentation of each case. 

 

3

The acts that preceded the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 were The Manpower Development and Training Act 

of 1962, the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973 (which included the Youth Employment 

Demonstration Projects Act (YEDPA), and the Job Training Partnership Act of 1982 (JTPA).. 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

3

II. OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

A. OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY 

The summer 2009 Brandeis study had the following four objectives: 

1. Conduct special documentation to capture “best practices” and management 

innovations in the SYEI and identify challenges. 

2. Learn and disseminate lessons from this summer program and do so in a way 

that inspires and motivates local communities to mobilize positive and creative 

opportunities for youth transition to adulthood. 

3. Help USDOL/ETA and philanthropic partners to identify policy, programs and 

system design implications and what can be done by pointing to experience in 

four featured communities. 

4. Produce four “deeply layered and highly textured” case studies and an 

overarching lessons learned report. 

The study was intended to complement the other research being conducted during the 

2009 SYEI – specifically, ETA’s own monitoring and data collection and the ETA study 

conducted by Mathematica in 20 communities.4 

To achieve these objectives, four communities were selected among those participating 

in the ARRA summer youth employment initiative. The site selection process involved 

seeking communities that were open to this in-depth study and that had local leadership 

that would provide matching funds to support the study. Nine senior researchers from 

Brandeis visited each community (in teams of two) for two weeks in July and August 

2009, conducting interviews and focus groups as well as observing worksites, classes, 

and activities. The researchers also reviewed performance reports for each community 

and researched the recessionary conditions. 

The Brandeis study team used qualitative, case study methods in the context of 

“appreciative inquiry,” which is defined as follows: 

An approach to organizational change that focuses and builds on the 

strengths and potential of an organization. Every organization has 

something that works right – things that give it life when it is most 

alive, effective, successful, and connected in healthy ways to its 

stakeholders and communities. AI [appreciative inquiry] begins by 

identifying what is positive and connecting to it in ways that heighten 

the energy, vision, and action for change.5

Appreciative inquiry starts with the notion that “something is working here” and then 

asks, “what is it, and how, and why?” It acknowledges problems and challenges but 

 

4 The other study is Reinvesting in America’s Youth: Lessons from the 2009 Recovery Act Summer Youth 

Employment Initiative (Mathematica Policy Research, February 2010), by J. Bellotti, L. Rosenberg, S. Sattar, A. M. 

Esposito, and J. Ziegler.

5

 David L. Cooperrider, Diana Whitney, Jacquelin M. Starvos, Appreciative Inquiry Handbook For Leaders of 

Change, 2nd Edition (Brunswick, Ohio: Crown Custom Publishing, Inc., 2008). 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

4

frames them as “lessons learned” – how did communities deal with the problems and 

challenges? 

The guiding theme for this investigation was “innovating under pressure.” The study 

focused both on management innovations (using Peter Drucker’s concept of the 

discipline of innovation6) and on best program practices identified in the youth 

employment and youth development literature7, including: 

 Meaningful work (more than just a paycheck). 

 Relationship with competent, caring adults (i.e., high quality staff and worksite 

supervisors). 

 Youth development principles in place for positive developmental settings (young 

people and adults working together as partners, with opportunities for youth 

engagement and leadership). 

 Opportunity to combine work and learning and acquire marketable skills that 

meet local needs; project and work-based learning. 

 Age and stage appropriate placements and tasks. 

 Evidence of partnerships/coordination for a “system of supports and 

opportunities.” 

This report briefly describes each community’s operations and discusses key findings 

concerning management innovations and best practices. It also captures the challenges 

and lessons. The case studies provide detail about each community’s experience. Each 

case is a unique representation of what happened in the SYEI. 

B. STUDY SITES 

This section lists the four study sites along with their lead agencies and partners. 

 Chicago. The Department of Family and Support Services (DFSS) was the lead 

agency for the SYEI, building on their close working relationships with the city’s Outof-School Time partnership. Other partners included the 34 organizations selected 

through a Request for Proposals (RFP) process to serve as Hubs8 – some of which 

essentially served as funding agencies for a subsidiary network of programs, or 

Spokes.9

 Detroit. Core leadership was provided by the Detroit Youth Employment 

Consortium, City Connect Detroit, the Detroit Workforce Development Department, 

 

6

 Peter F. Drucker, “The Discipline of Innovation,” Harvard Business Review: The Innovative Enterprise (August 

2002):13-15. The three core elements as defined by Drucker are focus on mission, results orientation, and 

monitoring for continuous improvement/commitment to evaluation as a management and learning tool. 7

 Eccles, Jacquelynn and Jennifer Appleton Gootman (eds.) Community Programs to Promote Youth Development. 

Community Programs for Youth, National Research Council & Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC, National 

Academy Press, 2002. 

A Primer on Improving the Quality of Academic Enrichment in Summer Youth Employment Programs, 1993. 

Prepared by Brandeis University as part of the Youth Research and Technical Assistance Project sponsored by the 

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Washington, DC. 

A Synthesis Report on The Summer Beginnings National Work and Learning Network,1995. Prepared as part of the 

Youth Research and Technical Assistance Project sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and 

Training Administration, Washington, DC, 1992. Prepared by Brandeis University and Public/Private Ventures. 8

 The Hub organizations were a mix of city agencies, traditional community-based youth programs, major cultural 

centers, WIA program providers, nonprofit community development organizations, community-based agencies, 

faith-based organizations, and for-profit workforce development firms. 9

 The worksites (Spokes) included non-profit and public institutions, private businesses, and a variety of other 

entities such as health care-related organizations and arts/media organizations. 
the Youth Development Commission, the Skillman Foundation, and the state of 

Michigan. Job placements were developed in all three sectors – public, private, and 

nonprofit entities – with nearly a quarter in private businesses. 

 Indianapolis and Marion County. Led by the Indianapolis Private Industry Council 

and the Indianapolis Mayor’s Office, “YouthWorks Indy” had several key nonprofit 

and education partners, including Job Works, River Valley Resources, Goodwill 

Industries, the Greater Educational Opportunities Foundation, the Metropolitan 

Indianapolis Central Indiana Area Health Education Center, Ivy Tech Community 

College, Indianapolis Public Schools (with two school sites – George Washington 

Community High School and Arsenal Technical High School), and three charter 

schools (Fall Creek Academy, Fountain Square Academy, and Indianapolis 

Metropolitan High School). 

 Phoenix and Maricopa County. Led by the Phoenix Workforce Connection and 

Maricopa Workforce Connection, the program’s other partners included city and 

county government, Arizona Call-A-Teen Youth Resources, Gateway Community 

College, and a wide range of other public, nonprofit, and for-profit partners. 

III. KEY FINDINGS: LEADING BEST PRACTICES 

AND MANAGEMENT INNOVATIONS 

After several years without Federal funding for SYEPs, the 2009 SYEI was a time for 

“re-learning” about summer youth employment and for experimenting with new 

ways of doing things. Planning and implementation sometimes occurred in advance 

of much needed information and funds. Yet, despite tight timelines and numerous 

challenges, each city succeeded. The programs offered thousands of young people a 

safe place to be, needed earnings, academic credits and credentials, job skills, 

connections to the job market, and an important step toward adulthood. Dedicated, 

smart, hardworking employment and training professionals, community leaders, and 

partners drove the initiatives. In short, there were many achievements during this 

“re-learning” year. More specifically, in all four communities, public agencies 

established new operating structures; developed and strengthened public/private 

partnerships; involved youth in meaningful work and learning experiences that 

incorporated best practice principles from youth development; demonstrated a 

commitment to continuous improvement (using data, learning from mistakes, and 

focusing on quality) on their way to providing thousands of young people with 

opportunities to work, earn, and learn. In addition, each program was responsive to 

the needs and strengths of the local population and local industry. This section 

addresses each of these in turn. 

Strong leadership was a hallmark of all four programs, and leaders at all levels 

demonstrated both flexibility and resilience. The SYEI was a fast moving train – but 

it stayed on track. When it veered or tilted off course, the communities recovered. 

Each community had intuitive and trained people whose passion and commitment to 

excellence were palpable. Depending on local resources and needs, the communities 

hired staff, reassigned staff, or contracted with other organizations to implement 

SYEIs.

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

5
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

6

 “We were trying to do something extraordinary with ordinary rules. The level 

of effort to pull this off was the most extraordinary thing I’ve seen in an 

awfully long time.” (Phoenix Workforce Development Administrator) 

 “Real-time problem-solving in this program was phenomenal.” (Indianapolis 

School Administrator) 

A. NEW OPERATING STRUCTURES: 

 Mission-Driven and Results-Oriented Leadership 

Chicago created a Hub and Spokes network of program providers and worksites that 

included private employers, public agencies, nonprofits, and the city’s major cultural 

institutions. Detroit established a new collaborative approach using a strong cityintermediary collaborating with philanthropic leadership and investment. 

Indianapolis and Marion County developed a network of contractors, including 

several schools, to create a program explicitly linking education and work. Phoenix 

and Maricopa County developed a coordinated regional strategy that offered 

consistency across the city, suburbs, and rural areas. The following descriptions 

briefly elaborate on how each program operated. 

City Hub and Spoke Model: Chicago. Youth Ready Chicago used an inventive city 

Hub and Spoke model with the DFSS10 at its center. Through an RFP, the City 

selected 34 organizations to serve as Hubs, which were responsible for recruiting and 

managing worksites (Spokes) that directly provided summer jobs for and supervised 

youth, as well as managing the payroll and other costs for the young participants. 

This approach allowed the City to make program design and management 

requirements explicit in the RFPs, select Hubs that were committed to carrying them 

out, bring new agencies and employers into the youth program network, and offer 

new opportunities for youth. DFSS restricted Hub agency eligibility to organizations 

with an annual operating budget of at least $500,000 and a commitment to serve at 

least 100 young people under their contracts. These restrictions ensured that Hubs 

would have the financial stability to manage a summer payroll and pay participants 

in advance of the city’s reimbursement, and that the number of Hubs would be 

limited (so that DFSS would not have to manage too many small contracts). The 

program required youth to apply through the Youth Ready Chicago website, which 

had already been created through the city’s collaborative youth development efforts. 

Public-Private Collaboration and Leadership: Detroit. A strong cityintermediary collaboration and philanthropic leadership characterized the Detroit 

program. It was sparked by the newly formed Youth Employment Consortium and 

built on established partnerships between philanthropy, government, business, and 

nonprofits; a history of collaboration; institutional memory; and a culture of learning 

and continuous improvement. The Brandeis study team also discovered a vibrant 

hidden infrastructure of vision, hope, energy, and leadership – and a true “discipline 

of innovation” – among a core group of game changers in Detroit. This group – 

which intends to transform Detroit’s neighborhoods and “create conditions where all 

children are safe, healthy, well-educated, and prepared for adulthood” – used the 

SYEI as one instrument of change toward those ends. The funding was attractive, 

but the opportunity it presented for new ways of doing business in the city was 

equally attractive. There were five key partners in Detroit’s program. The Detroit 

Youth Employment Consortium - a group of program providers, employers, funders, 

 

10In Chicago, the Workforce Investment Board is a separate policy and oversight board, part of the broader Chicago 

Workforce Investment Council (http://www.chicagoworkforceboard.com). DFSS is responsible for managing the 

city's WIA-funded youth employment programs. 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

7

and other leaders who come together to plan and review youth employment 

experiences, analyze what works and what doesn’t, and consider the future - 

provided guidance for development of the 2009 SYEI. The Detroit Workforce 

Development Department (DWDD)11 was responsible for program oversight and 

issued an RFP for program implementation. City Connect Detroit was awarded the 

contract to serve as the program-level administrator and overall coordinator of the 

SYEI, including oversight of an operational partner. The Youth Development 

Commission, the operational partner with City Connect Detroit, was responsible for 

day to day operation of multiple aspects of the program. The Skillman Foundation 

provided financial and technical support to the SYEI. The Brandeis researchers 

repeatedly heard that Detroit could not have accomplished this without the Skillman 

Foundation’s leadership and resources. 

Partnerships, Work, and Learning: Indianapolis and Marion County. To 

develop YouthWorks Indy, the Indianapolis Private Industry Council (IPIC) and the 

Mayor’s Office - the initiative’s central planners - depended upon key partnerships to 

explicitly link education and work experience, recognizing the city’s extremely low 

high school graduation rates and high youth unemployment. (IPIC, the local 

workforce investment board, has established itself as the source of workforce 

development in Central Indiana and has a history of working closely with the Mayor’s 

Office to advance residents’ job skills and employment options.) The summer 

program model was a split day, 1⁄2 day school – 1⁄2 day work (i.e., most youth 

participants attended class for half a day and worked for the other half of the day, 

and jobs were generally shared between two youth). The split day was intended to 

convey that both work and learning were important; the job sharing aspect was also 

seen as helping the program to take full advantage of limited work opportunities. 

Youth were paid for both work and school. IPIC assigned two of its staff members to 

prioritize overall oversight of the summer program and contracted with two existing 

partner agencies – JobWorks to recruit youth and determine eligibility, and River 

Valley Resources to monitor worksites, manage payroll, and be the employer of 

record. Several other organizations were significant partners from the outset. The 

planners issued an RFP to select education providers and create three educational 

tracks: an in-school youth program, an out-of-school youth program, and a medical 

youth program. Education partners were expected to support educational pathways 

for all youth, regardless of their current academic status, and many youth earned 

academic credits or credentials. IPIC turned to its education contractors and the 

Mayor’s office for help enlisting employers from the for-profit, nonprofit, and public 

sectors. 

Streamlined City-County Coordination: Phoenix and Maricopa County. A 

defining characteristic of this program was streamlined city-county coordination 

across urban, suburban, and very rural areas. The city and county workforce 

development systems (the Phoenix Workforce Connection and the Maricopa 

Workforce Connection) had been working towards the creation of a seamless process 

across the county, city, and service providers, but the 2009 SYEI intensified the 

process. They centralized outreach and recruitment, worked together to clarify 

eligibility criteria, created common application forms and practices, and set up 

common pick-up and drop-off locations for paperwork. The management design 

centered around a large number of summer line staff – career advisors or case 

managers – to provide a work readiness orientation to the youth participants; 

monitor youth performance and the quality of their work experiences; handle 

 

11The DWDD is the chief administrator for WIA in Detroit. 
administrative tasks; serve as problem solvers and liaisons across youth, employers, 

and the summer program; and offer youth supports such as counseling, case 

management, and referrals. The high quality backgrounds of the people hired 

enabled them to do an effective job despite very limited training (limited due to the 

tight timeline). Using advice from leaders with prior SYEP experience, the city and 

county standardized pay rates for youth participants and developed a process in 

which agencies sent projected expenditures to the city and county in advance of 

payrolls to accelerate check processing. 

B. STRENGTHENED PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS 

All four communities depended (successfully) on partnerships and collaborations. 

Chicago’s summer programs built on an existing effort to create a comprehensive 

citywide youth development strategy involving the city’s youth employment 

programs, public schools, housing and park district agencies, business groups, and 

the citywide after-school program. Detroit philanthropic organizations provided the 

spark to develop a comprehensive, citywide approach. Indianapolis and Marion 

County expanded their network of public and private partners with a commitment to 

workforce development, youth, and education. Phoenix and Maricopa County took 

steps toward greater city-county alignment and also expanded their network. 

The efforts in each community required and demonstrated an extraordinarily 

intensive level of collaboration. The urgency of the timetable moved service 

providers away from the more competitive business-as-usual model. The 

collaboration was brought about very quickly and at every level of leadership and 

program implementation. Each community appeared driven by a philosophy that 

partnerships were a must. In addition to collaboration between key planners, local 

CBOs, businesses, faith-based organizations, employers, schools, and philanthropic 

organizations were involved in every community. At least some of the partnerships 

had been in formation prior to summer 2009 in all four communities, but the 2009 

SYEI strengthened existing connections and forged new ones. At each site, the 

planners and leaders made every effort to “cast a broad net” and leverage existing 

partnerships. 

Moreover, partnerships/collaborations helped communities navigate around varying 

levels of institutional knowledge and experience in running SYEPs. Partnerships 

helped all communities move forward more quickly and at higher levels of 

effectiveness, no matter what their recent summer youth employment history. Only 

Chicago had recent experience with large-scale summer youth employment 

activities. Detroit had run recent but smaller programs; Phoenix and Maricopa 

County also had recent experience with more modest programs and could call on 

“veterans” of earlier SYEPs. Indianapolis and Marion County had not run an SYEP 

since the Summer Youth Employment Training Program (SYETP) in the late 1990s. 

Partnerships in the Four Communities: Highlights 

Deepening Existing Networks: Chicago. The city’s network of existing 

partnerships from 15 years of experience running year-round and summer 

programming helped the program to start up quickly. Key partners included the 

school system, parks and recreation, housing authority, and an after-school umbrella 

organization that resulted in the creation of both a Youth Employment Oversight 

Committee and a Youth Ready Chicago website that became the conduit for youth to 

apply to the summer program. This history also meant that the city had a reservoir 

of seasoned summer youth employment deliverers, including some with over 15 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

8
years of relevant experience. In particular, the city had ready access to nonprofit 

partners that had a history of serving particular target groups – such as La Casa 

Norte (expertise in and access to homeless youth), Central States SER (expertise in 

and access to Hispanic youth), and the Chicago Public Housing Authority (expertise 

and access to public housing residents) – increasing the likelihood of serving youth in 

these categories with services that were tailored to their needs. 

Private Resources as a Jump-Start: Detroit. The city not only has an array of 

professionals who possess institutional memory of the large USDOL summer 

programs from the 1990s; it also has operated summer programs over the last ten 

years. Even more broadly, a core group of Detroit leaders was already working 

together to transform the city’s neighborhoods and “create conditions where all 

children are safe, healthy, well-educated, and prepared for adulthood.” As a result, 

some aspects of the necessary infrastructure for the 2009 SYEI were already 

present. One tangible benefit of the existing partnerships was the Skillman 

Foundation’s commitment to provide a private, limited pot of money as a safety net 

to, for example, pay youth who were enrolled in, but later proved ineligible for, the 

SYEI. 

Deep Partnership Base: Indianapolis and Marion County. YouthWorks Indy 

was brought to scale so quickly because IPIC had a deep partnership base to rely on. 

IPIC contracted out for virtually all services. They were looking to partner with 

agencies that had a sense of community responsibility, were already serving WIA 

participants, and were reliable players in the city. To expand their network, IPIC and 

the Mayor’s office reached out to all their public and private partners to encourage 

them to recommend worksites; they also encouraged the schools involved in the 

SYEI to reach out to their networks – and they did. 

Teamwork: Phoenix and Maricopa County. It was a tall order for the city and 

county to strengthen the relationship between their workforce development systems. 

City and County workforce development leaders held a number of system-wide 

meetings beginning in February 2009 to initiate planning the SYEI. One said, “We 

were two huge entities and we needed to coordinate in more intensive ways. It was 

challenging, but we did it.” Their teamwork helped to bring their respective networks 

together as well. 

C. MEANINGFUL WORK AND LEARNING FOR YOUTH 

The concepts of meaningful work and learning – tied implicitly or explicitly to a youth 

development approach – were reflected in the policies and approaches in all four 

communities. All four had programs that provided rich work-based learning 

opportunities and reflected the elements of high quality youth employment and 

youth development programs, such as meaningful work, connections to learning, 

involvement of caring adults, and opportunities for leadership. 

For many youth, their summer 2009 paychecks were the first they ever earned, and 

many were able to help their families financially. Although providing “just a job” is 

an achievement in itself, all communities attempted to create jobs with meaning. 

Communities defined meaningful work in somewhat different ways, but common 

elements were jobs focused on work readiness skills, exposure and opportunity to 

learn about college and career pathways, the importance of improving the 

environment, or promoting social justice. 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

9
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

10

“Summer jobs are not just about getting kids off the street. We want 

to put kids into meaningful jobs that are pathways to college and 

careers.” (Chicago) 

“I was hoping for a job to get off the streets and stay out of trouble. 

Pay is not the main thing. The main thing is getting good experience. 

I am learning how to be a leader, how to grow up, how to become 

someone who younger kids will look up to. It makes me feel good.” 

(Chicago youth) 

Based on study observations, several elements of “meaningfulness” were identified 

that align well with the criteria discussed earlier for effective SYEIs. 

 Work Readiness Skills/Workforce Exposure. Every program included 

some element of teaching work readiness skills such as attendance, 

punctuality, work expectations, and problem-solving. Some of this teaching 

was formal and occurred at the beginning of and/or throughout the program. 

But on-the-job training was important as well, and many supervisors helped 

the young people become “ready” on a day-to-day basis. Some youth 

participants were able to explore career pathways and options in very 

intentional ways, through visits, interviews, job shadowing, and 

presentations. Even when such exploration was not explicitly provided, the 

youth were exposed to the workforce, and for many this was a big step. 

Every program offered at least some variety of jobs in different sectors of the 

economy (for-profit, not-for-profit, government) and in different industries 

(health care, environmental protection, robotics). 

 Principles of Positive Community Youth Development. Most 

communities provided at least some opportunities for positive community 

youth development, i.e., “young people and adults working together as 

partners and viewing each other as competent resources to build and sustain 

just, safe, and healthy communities.”12 For some of the young participants, 

the 2009 SYEI was their first experience in feeling respected and appreciated. 

 Mentoring. Most jobs provided supervisor support for social skills as well as 

vocational training. The quality of the learning experience for youth was 

dependent on the quality of the mentor/supervisor. Creative worksite 

supervisors became true mentors for youth. The supervisor’s commitment 

was key to how much additional learning occurred on the job. Jobs with 

enhanced learning opportunities were those in which supervisors gave youth 

responsibility, a measure of autonomy, and regular feedback on their 

performance. Detroit respondents in particular commented on how many 

“top-rate” supervisors the summer program had, but exemplary supervisors 

were observed in all four communities. 

 

12 Susan P. Curnan and Della M. Hughes, “Toward Shared Prosperity: Change-Making in the CYD Movement,” CYD 

Anthology (2002) 2-8. 
 Meaningful Work and Learning in the Four Communities: Highlights 

Science and the Arts: Chicago. One example of meaningful work in Chicago was 

at the world-renowned Museum of Science and Industry, where about 75 young men 

and women who expressed an interest in science got training in science and science 

education. They then used their training to work with young visitors to the museum 

on interactive, participatory projects and to provide hands-on science activities to 

young people at other facilities such as those of the Chicago Park District. In another 

example, a group of homeless youth at La Casa Norte used reading, writing, and 

other skills to prepare and deliver a play/skit in which they explained their 

experiences as homeless youth and presented it to the community. 

The Environment, Journalism, and Community Research: Detroit. The 

Conservation Leadership Corps, an innovative public-private partnership involving 

Johnson Controls, the Student Conservation Association and The Greening of Detroit, 

employed 110 youth in environmental stewardship experiences. Another example of 

high quality project-based learning was Young Detroiter Magazine at Communities in 

Schools – a youth-run magazine with a mission to “broaden the education of metro 

area teens through journalism and special programs which create unique 

opportunities through media.” Yet another was the Youth Engaged in Community 

Research Project, designed and managed by the University of Michigan, School of 

Social Work, Good Neighborhoods Technical Assistance Center, in which dozens of 

young people assessed neighborhood assets and concerns. 

Diverse Opportunities: Indianapolis and Marion County. The SYEI considered 

work “meaningful” if output was valued and job performance mattered. Youth 

performed more than 50 different types of jobs, including office work, maintenance, 

camp counseling, and medical assistance. At a minimum, the program intended that 

work would give youth participants an opportunity to learn real-life problem-solving 

skills, (e.g., how to deal with supervisors, resolve conflicts with coworkers, and 

manage time and tasks) as well as basic financial management skills. The program 

also offered some outstanding examples of meaningful work and learning, in 

particular the medical youth program. 

Career Exploration and Internships: Phoenix and Maricopa County. Some 

employers attempted to make young people’s experiences more meaningful by 

infusing “all aspects of an industry” into youths’ experiences to help them see how 

their summer job fits into the “big picture.” Informal career exploration occurred at 

a number of worksites through the individual or combined efforts of youths’ 

supervisors, coworkers, and/or Career Advisors/Case Managers. Three elaborate 

internship programs, developed in collaboration with Gateway Community College, 

represented an example of an innovative partnership with considerable resource 

leveraging. These internships were offered to a limited number of youth with serious 

interests in entrepreneurship, advanced manufacturing/robotics, or health care. One 

of the entrepreneurship worksites was Lotus Wei and Wei of Chocolate, two organic 

product companies. Four young people participated in production activities, sales, 

and experiential and creative opportunities. The employers’ goal was to raise the 

young people’s consciousness about life and work, and to empower them to make 

better choices. 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

11
D. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT 

Leadership and staff in all four communities were committed to “getting it 

right.” Detroit was committed to total quality management and responded quickly 

to payroll system problems and other dilemmas; in Chicago, the city and its Hubs 

made constant adjustments to meet the challenges of documenting eligibility. 

Indianapolis and Marion County worked to design programs that met employer and 

local labor market needs. Staff across the board demonstrated resilience, 

determination, and a willingness to work until the task was done in order to ensure 

that young people made it into jobs. All communities created a culture of learning 

and reflection. 

All communities showed their commitment to functioning as a learning 

organization in the way they operated their programs (using evaluation as a 

management and learning tool, continuously improving operations, and 

reflecting on their work). They convened partners in the planning process, 

reflected on lessons learned during the summer, and brought partners together to 

evaluate the experience and how to improve for next year. They also showed their 

commitment in the way they opened their doors to the Brandeis researchers. They 

were open and honest about their specific challenges and the lessons they learned in 

creating a complex summer program for a challenging population within a tight time 

frame. 

All communities acknowledged that they were learning under pressure but 

turned this into an opportunity. They made mistakes and miscalculations and 

faced unknowns, but these led to lessons learned. “We had to learn and fix, all with 

the media watching.” “Mistakes represent learning opportunities.” Lotteries, 

eligibility events, full-court press attention to payroll problems, debit cards, 

vouchers, a “rolling start” for enrollment, and techniques for developing “instant 

handbooks” were just a few of the ways communities dealt with serious challenges. 

The following lessons were culled from the Brandeis researchers’ conversations about 

what the communities would do differently next time or what advice they would give 

other communities embarking on a SYEI: 

 Focus on the quality and training of worksite supervisors to enrich the youths’ 

learning experience. All communities made efforts to ensure supervisory and 

worksite quality. For example, Phoenix and Maricopa County developed and 

implemented a deliberate process of orientation and training, including a worksite 

supervisor’s handbook, and hired staff (called career advisors or case managers) 

whose responsibilities included worksite monitoring and support. With a relatively 

large number of such staff, communication with worksites was relatively frequent. 

Other communities struggled more with worksite and supervisor preparation, 

support, and monitoring. For example, in Chicago, informants at both DFSS and the 

Hubs said that time spent addressing eligibility issues took time away from quality 

assurance and worksite monitoring. In Indianapolis and Marion County, the 

organization that had contracted to monitor worksites had planned for 50 worksites, 

but the actual number was more than 200. Informants in all communities, however, 

strongly believed that doing more to promote high-quality supervision would have 

directly enhanced the quality of the youths’ experience. 

 Prepare for creative financing options, including covering unintended costs to 

worksites. In Chicago, the DFSS Commissioner authorized staff to streamline the 

eligibility review process, and, where necessary, to allow participants to begin 

working while eligibility determination was still underway (with completion of 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

12
necessary paperwork to follow); she would cover disallowed costs with other funds. 

The Detroit program had the benefit of a fund established by the Skillman 

Foundation to cover unexpected costs and short-term loans. The Phoenix and 

Maricopa County leaders crafted agreements that standardized the rates of pay for 

youth and also developed a process through which agencies sent projected 

expenditures to the city and county in advance of payrolls so that checks could be 

processed based upon the projections. The projected figures provided cash in the 

bank to cover the real payroll; differences between real and projected payroll figures 

could be adjusted in subsequent pay periods. 

 Streamline eligibility determination, assessment, and orientation. Two communities 

(Phoenix and Maricopa County and Chicago) used the promising practice of eligibility 

events for youth. These worked especially well in Phoenix and Maricopa County but 

both communities would try them again (Chicago leaders compiled a list of 

suggested improvements to help theirs go better in the future.) Indianapolis and 

Marion County had the least problematic experience with determining youth 

eligibility. Two factors that may have contributed to a smoother process were a 

state rule allowing self-attestation of income and the fact that they had a relatively 

smaller number of youth applications to process. 

 Create a seamless infrastructure for data management, payroll options, and other 

critical processes. Despite employing various creative strategies, such as using debit 

cards instead of checks in Indianapolis and Marion County, all of the communities 

experienced data management and payroll problems that affected their ability to 

ensure quality. Data entry alone was a serious problem for most of the four 

communities. For example, the Illinois data management system that the Chicago 

program had to use was old and regularly crashed. Staff entered data on evenings 

and weekends (when the system was less overloaded) and the program used interns 

and hired temporary data entry workers. In Indianapolis and Marion County, the 

program’s multiple, separate data systems meant that there was no single database 

on participants and activities. Because of the dysfunctions of the Phoenix and 

Maricopa County older, time-consuming, and very limited system, many SYEI 

providers developed dual information systems, a level of decentralization that made 

it difficult to analyze program-wide data. 

 Consider vouchers for transportation and clothing for participating youth. The youth 

who are the target of the SYEI often lack good access to transportation and 

professional clothing. Transportation to worksites in particular was a problem in all 

four communities, especially when jobs that would interest youth were not located 

near their homes. Phoenix and Maricopa County’s voucher system was very helpful 

in this regard, enabling some youth to take jobs that were good matches and 

enabling other youth simply to take a job. Many of the young people interviewed 

said that these supports were very important, and that access to a summer job 

without supports would have proved inadequate. 

 Match jobs and educational offerings to participants’ skills, interests, and locations. 

The four communities found that their lofty vision of “great matches” quickly turned 

to the reality of getting kids to work – communities couldn’t job match as much as 

they would have liked. The strategies used by the four communities were a good 

start. For example, applications included a place for youth to list preferences and 

career interests, and all four communities developed mechanisms to help match 

youth and jobs by location (to minimize transportation problems). However, all four 

communities considered job matching a critical factor in youth success and wanted to 

improve their job matching ability. 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

13
 Acknowledge that no one can go it alone. 

A key element of success in all four communities was the presence of pre-existing 

collaborative relationships on which to build. For example, in Chicago, the Out-ofSchool Time initiative leaders had already established the Youth Ready Chicago 

website, which provided a common portal and single point of entry for young people 

to apply for summer jobs and a single point of entry for employers looking for 

summer job applicants. In Detroit, the organization that was the chief strategist for 

the 2009 SYEI had come into being in 2008 as a direct outcome of ongoing 

collaborative efforts, stimulated by Skillman Foundation investments, to “create 

conditions where all children are safe, healthy, well-educated and prepared for 

adulthood.” This type of collaboration not only expands the resources available for 

implementation, but also strengthens and elevates the process of developing a 

vision. 

Forming internal collaborative working groups or teams to share the responsibility 

and establish an “all hands on deck” strategy also contributed to success in the four 

communities. All four communities demonstrated this level of collaboration. The 

Chicago and Detroit SYEI experiences were especially noteworthy in this regard. 

E. RESPONSIVENESS TO LOCAL NEEDS AND STRENGTHS 

All four communities considered their local context when planning the 2009 SYEI. In 

some cases, this meant thinking about what occupations were likely to be most in 

demand; in others, it meant addressing what local youth needed. All communities 

built on strengths in existing partnerships and local commitments to improving local 

economies as well as conditions for youth. 

How the Four Communities Responded to Local Industry and 

Population: Highlights

Environmental Awareness: Chicago. One of Chicago’s Hubs was Central States 

SER, a community-based organization, which promoted environmental awareness by 

providing training on energy efficiency to SYEI participants. The trained youth then 

conducted energy-efficiency audits of their summer worksites and shared the results 

with their supervisors in the form of a proposal to upgrade energy efficiency at the 

worksite. 

Skill Building for a New Economy: Detroit. The program emphasized skill 

building for a new economy – including health related jobs, green jobs, and the 

creative and performing arts industry and aligned program/job placement with 

several recessionary challenges. For example, in response to food insecurity, 

increases in diet-related diseases, and vacant land, the SYEI targeted programs in 

urban gardening and environmental stewardship. Building on youth interest in the 

performing and creative arts, as well as a new tax credit that has attracted the 

filmmaking industry to Detroit, the SYEI supported The Arts Place to prepare young 

people for this sector. 

Education and Occupational Certificates: Indianapolis and Marion County. 

The program put education at the center of its program – not just putting kids to 

work – in response to very low high school graduation rates (30.5%) and 

achievement (only 21% of 10th graders passed the graduation requirement). 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

14
Planners determined that YouthWorks Indy needed to offer course recovery for youth 

to graduate on time, test prep to meet high school graduation testing requirements, 

GED, and courses leading to occupational certificates. The program also responded 

to local industry by offering course credits in occupational areas where new hires will 

be needed, such as health care and apartment maintenance. 

Phoenix and Maricopa County: Integrating with Economic Development. The 

SYEI represented an opportunity to demonstrate that the workforce development 

system is, as one administrator noted, “agile and responsive enough to produce what 

policymakers consider tangible outcomes worthy of continued investments.” It also 

demonstrated that workforce development systems could be more fully integrated 

into city and county economic growth and development efforts. 

IV. SUMMARY OF COMMON CHALLENGES 

All of the communities struggled at least to some extent with certifying large 

numbers of young people as eligible and enrolled; to ensure that funds were 

available to pay them; to match youth to appropriate jobs; to assess and report on 

their experiences; and to create new opportunities in “green” industries. The 

challenges were magnified by the issues of timing and time. 

A. ELIGIBILITY 

Three of the four communities faced serious struggles with the need to document 

WIA eligibility for thousands of young people in a short time frame. (The fourth 

community (Indianapolis and Marion County) had fewer documentation problems – 

possibly due in part to a state rule allowing self-attestation of income.) The process 

was made more challenging by the fact that eligibility for some common programs 

aimed at low-income families (e.g., National Free/Reduced Price Lunch program) 

could not serve as proxies for WIA eligibility. Eligibility issues often meant delays for 

youth ready to start summer jobs (and for their employers) as well as less staff time 

devoted to program monitoring and technical assistance. These issues may have 

served as barriers to enrollment, since the youth most in need may have been least 

able to provide the required documentation. All four communities made significant 

efforts to target vulnerable youth populations – low-income youth, out-of-school 

youth, youth offenders, homeless youth, veterans, and youth with disabilities. Still, 

most found that the eligibility certification process may have unintentionally made it 

harder for the most vulnerable to become part of the program. 

B. FUNDING/CASH FLOW 

Nonprofit organizations in every community had to work quickly to raise funds and 

create new, or extend existing, lines of credit in order to meet the up-front costs of 

staffing and payroll for large numbers of summer workers while waiting for 

reimbursement. While some communities (notably Detroit) were able to create 

funding pools and provide short-term loans, and Chicago’s Commissioner of DFSS 

committed funds to cover payroll for youth who were expected to be eligible but for 

whom paperwork was not yet complete, the summer programs’ financial demands 

limited the participation of smaller community-based organizations. 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

15
C. JOB MATCHING 

In all four communities, the short time frame and the challenges of documenting 

eligibility limited the opportunities for local programs to provide a careful match 

between participant interests and jobs. There were some successes (e.g., through 

Chicago’s central application database), but in many cases eligible youth were simply 

placed in available jobs. 

D. ASSESSMENT AND REPORTING 

The rapid start-up also meant that work assessment, data management, and 

reporting systems were often unable to handle the volume of data to be entered, the 

numbers of young people to be assessed, or the need to utilize data from 

management information systems for summer reporting. In some cases, this was 

exacerbated by outdated and/or inadequate software (e.g., in Phoenix and Maricopa 

County). 

E. GREEN JOBS 

While all of the communities were able to establish some “green” jobs, numbers were 

limited and the jobs often represented work in traditional green industries 

(agriculture and forestry vs. solar panel production, for example). Detroit offers the 

best example of developing green jobs through a private sector partnership devoted 

to the “Greening of Detroit.” 

V. THE MAIN INGREDIENTS

While the study yields many insights about the SYEI, five main ingredients for 

success stand out: 

A. Leaderships trumps all. 

One underlying lesson stands out: to successfully innovate under pressure, 

leadership trumps all. As discussed earlier, leaders in these four communities 

were strong, resilient risk takers who shared three core management qualities: 

mission focus, results orientation, and a commitment to monitoring for 

continuous improvement. 

B. Cross-sector partnerships are necessary. 

 Adaptive capacity helped the four communities to make the most of this 

opportunity. The Federal government might consider providing assistance to 

increase the community capacity to build the local leadership and partnerships 

needed to respond effectively to new and demanding circumstances as they 

arise. 

C. Incorporation of youth development principles adds quality and skills.

 With so many youth involved in SYEIs across the country, an opportunity exists 

to educate youth on issues besides employment (e.g., financial literacy, health). 

This aligns well with broader youth development goals. 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

16
D. Alternate pools of money and flexible lines of credit are helpful. 

Communities with such resources (particularly Chicago and Detroit) had a “failsafe” and important flexibility with respect to moving quickly, paying youth, and 

cash flow. 

 E. Think big: Consider the role of work and learning in preparing youth for 

post-secondary education, work, and life.

The summer of 2009 re-opens the door to broader links between employment 

and training and education. As referenced earlier, the concept of “year-round 

summer” with creative project-based and work-based learning for academic 

credit has proven to be a valuable pathway for young people struggling in 

traditional classrooms. The 2009 SYEI also suggests that investing in the 

transition to post-secondary education and credentials can lead to valuable 

outcomes for older youth. 

As already noted, all of the communities in the Brandeis study struggled at least to some 

extent to get large numbers of young people certified as eligible and enrolled; to ensure 

that funds were available to pay them; to match youth to their job interest; to assess and 

report on their experiences and to create new opportunities in “green” industries. These 

challenges were magnified by the issues of timing and time. 

However, despite the challenges, thousands of young people and their communities used 

the 2009 SYEI as a springboard for the healthy development of youth and communities. 

Many youth directly benefited from the investment, and communities established credible 

cross-sector partnerships that hold the promise of continued investment. The four 

communities featured in this report accomplished most of their goals and learned valuable 

lessons to apply to future SYEIs. 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

17
PART 2 

VI. Case Studies

 Chicago, IL 

 Detroit, MI 

 Indianapolis and Marion County, IN 

 Phoenix and Maricopa County, AZ 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

18
 CASE STUDY 

INNOVATING UNDER PRESSURE: 

THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT

2009 Summer Youth Employment Initiative 

Chicago 

Prepared by: 

The Center for Youth and Communities 

Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

Brandeis University 

Waltham, Massachusetts 

June 2010

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

19
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The Chicago case study was made possible by additional funding from Michael Reese Health 

Trust, Partners for New Communities, Chicago Community Trust, and Fry Foundation. We 

truly appreciate their support. Indeed, without the Foundation support, this report would not 

have been possible. Thank you to the Funder’s group who acted quickly and thoughtfully to 

make this happen. 

A special acknowledgement goes to our lead community partner in Chicago, the Chicago 

Department of Family and Support Services. Thank you Mary Ellen Caron, Commissioner, 

Carmen Alicea-Reyes, Deputy Commissioner, James Cheshire, Director, Mary Ellen Messner, 

Director, Anthony Raden, Deputy Commissioner, Elise Mann, Deputy Commissioner, and 

Christian Denes, Grants Research Specialist. Thanks also to the Youth Services staff: Patti 

Prade, Barbara Washington, Pat Buscher, Lisa Butts, Julia Talbot, Walter Brown, Ebony 

Baity, Andrew Fernandez, Benjamin Gregg, Jane Norton, Rasauna Riley, Rivera Riccadonna, 

Elisa Arlow, Evelyn Benitez, Monica Dunleavy-Gerster, Cesar Garza, Zaida Gonzales 

Chaidez, and Karen Nolan. 

Finally, thank you to the leadership staff of the following programs and worksites in Chicago 

who opened their doors to us and gave generously of their time. We are grateful to: 

 Phalanx Family Services: Tina Sanders, Executive Director

 Chicago Public Schools: Lois Richards, Director, Partnership Development 

 After School Matters: David Sinski, Executive Director, Molly Mayer, Project 

Manager and Rojas Osiris, Project Coordinator

 Museum of Science and Industry: LaTasha Battie, Manager of Community 

Initiatives Central States SER, Rachel McDonald Romo, Executive Director; Ariel 

Nievas, Director of Education; Audrey Meeks, La Casa Norte – Sol Flores, Executive 

Director, Patrushka Thigpen, Program Coordinator

 Chicago Housing Authority: Kristen Hamer, Director of Community Relations, 

Mary Howard, Cindy Blumenthal, Dorian Figgues, Wonda Elliott, Katryn Clincy, Alice 

Meadow and Michael Shelby 

 Chicago Workforce Investment Council: Joanna Greene, Vice-President, Finance 

and Operations 

 Chicago Metropolis 2020: Paula Wolff, Senior Executive 

 University of Chicago Medical Center: Mattie Coleman, Manager, Human Resource

 University of Chicago: David Chearo, Operations Manager; Norma Lopez-Reyna, 

Monarch Center; Ernesto Reyna, Education Technology Lab

 World Resources Chicago: Michael Diamond, President

 Chicago Lighthouse: Kelsey Thompson 

 Chicago High School for Agricultural Sciences: Shirley Saldana, Librarian

 St. Agatha Family Empowerment Center: Willie Bobbitt, Executive Director

 Corbin Funeral Home: Sarah Kennedy 

 I Am You Program and Boutique: Shawna Spenser, Director 

 TEC Services, Charles Family Investment Center: Greg Sutton, Founder and 

Project Executive 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

20
INNOVATING UNDER PRESSURE: 

THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT 

2009 Summer Youth Employment Initiative 

Chicago 

INTRODUCTION

Mayor Daley’s Youth Ready Chicago program connects young people, ages 

14-24, with internships, apprenticeships, and jobs within Chicago’s public and 

private business sectors. Each opportunity offers youth hands-on experience 

and an opportunity to gain marketable skills, supporting a successful 

transition from school into the workforce. 

 ---Youth Ready Chicago website (2009) 

Our goal was to get kids employed. We did it. 

 --Community affairs director at a DFSS Hub agency (2009) 

For Chicago, with youth and adult unemployment rates at historically high levels, the 2009 

summer youth employment initiative (SYEI) represented a major influx of funds (over $17 

million) and a significant challenge: how to design and roll out a summer jobs program in 

less than four months that could provide quality work and learning experiences for nearly 

8,000 young people. While Chicago, like several other large cities, had maintained summer 

jobs programs using city/local and private funding over the years, the 2009 funding 

represented the first major infusion of Federal funding for summer jobs in over a decade. 

For the leaders of the city’s youth and workforce development community – city agencies, 

private nonprofits, major cultural and educational organizations – the 2009 SYEI called for 

an “all hands on deck effort” to set up the systems and programs needed to provide 

effective summer work experiences for youth. 

Chicago’s 2009 SYEI was characterized by a strong nucleus, the Department of Family and 

Support Services (DFSS), and several strong partners with recent experience working 

together on after-school and summer opportunities for youth, including large-scale, locallyfunded summer youth employment programs (SYEPs). Operationally, the SYEI developed a 

network of Hubs and Spokes. The Hubs were organizations that recruited and managed the 

Spokes, which were SYEI worksites. (This case study generally uses the term “worksites.”) 

The following case study is based on interviews and site visits conducted by staff from the 

Center for Youth and Communities at Brandeis University’s Heller School for Social Policy 

and Management, primarily during a two-week site visit in July 2009, as well as on 

supplementary materials collected during and after the visit. Interviews were conducted 

with staff and leaders at key agencies (DFSS, the Chicago Workforce Investment Council, 

Chicago Metropolis 2020, etc.) as well as Hub agency and worksite staff. 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

21
 

PART I 

RECESSIONARY CONDITIONS: CHALLENGES AND ASSETS 

The need for an expanded initiative to provide summer youth employment was abundantly 

clear in 2009, with high levels of both youth and adult unemployment in the Chicago area. 

For the first half of 2009, Chicago’s unemployment rate hovered around 10%, rising to 

12.1% by June 2009. The challenges of finding employment were particularly great for 

youth. According to the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University, the 

seasonally adjusted employment rate for 16 to 19 year olds nationally had dropped to 

26.2% in 2009, the lowest level in over 60 years. In Illinois, the reported 2009 

employment rate for 16 to 19 year olds statewide was 27.9%, more than 20 points lower 

than in 2000. During the same period, the employment rate for 16 to 19 year olds in 

Chicago dropped to 16.5% from 30%. While estimating summer unemployment rates is 

difficult since so many young people enter the labor market only for the summer, Census 

data suggests that well over 100,000 youth aged 16 to 19 in Chicago were likely looking for 

a summer job. By the end of summer 2009, over 75,000 young people had applied for 

summer jobs on the Youth Ready Chicago website. 

Asset: Historical Context of Collaboration 

The city’s response to this challenge built on prior efforts to develop a comprehensive 

approach to youth employment and youth development. Through these efforts, major 

youth-serving agencies and nonprofit and cultural organizations had already established 

city- and privately-funded summer jobs programs and had begun considering how to link 

summer and after-school jobs to the city’s growing after-school program infrastructure. 

While they had little experience with a Federally-funded summer jobs program (i.e., WIA 

eligibility requirements), the city could draw on strong relationships and a large network of 

organizations with experience working with disadvantaged youth. As a result, the city was 

quickly able to set up a system of program Hubs to arrange worksites, recruit and place 

summer workers, and offer a creative array of work experiences for nearly 8,000 youth. 

The success and rapid ramp-up of the 2009 SYEI rested in large part on these established 

relationships and programs. 

The story of Chicago’s 2009 SYEI is an institutional story. It took place in the context of a 

number of collaborative initiatives aimed at building a more comprehensive approach to 

youth programs. Since the early 1990s, the city had been expanding the availability of 

after-school programs for school-aged youth. From 1993 to 1999, it had been a site for the 

Wallace Foundation’s MOST (Making the Most of Out-of-School Time) initiative, intended to 

strengthen after-school programs. Those efforts led to the establishment of the nonprofit 

After School Matters (ASM), a summer and after-school arts initiative. ASM had expanded 

by 2009 to providing after-school and summer opportunities in arts, science, technology, 

sports, and writing to over 25,000 young people in school and community-based sites. 

ASM’s program model was a “ladder” of youth development experiences, from informal club 

experiences through pre-apprenticeships, apprenticeships, and paid internships that 

incorporate hands-on and work-based learning experiences. 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

22
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

23

Chicago Out-of-School Time Project: Key Strategies 

 Increase coordination, access, and reach of quality programming by creating a citywide program 

and participant database that can be shared across agencies and providers. 

 Increase teen participation through a citywide communications initiative ... featuring the After 

School Matters apprenticeship model. 

 Establish citywide common definitions of after-school program quality and increase supports for 

continuous improvement by offering professional development opportunities and creating common 

tools and technical assistance resources for program providers. 

 Build support and readiness for achieving sustainable, coordinated, and dedicated funding, in 

order to provide after-school program opportunities for all of Chicago’s youth who want them. 

In 2008, with expanded Wallace Foundation support, the city established the Out-of-School 

Time (OST) Partnership as a multi-agency effort to coordinate OST programs, including 

programs for older youth. Housed in the city’s Department of Family and Support Services 

(DFSS – formerly the Department of Children and Youth Services), the OST project brought 

together DFSS youth services programs, the Chicago Public Schools, the Chicago Park 

District, the Chicago Public Library, and ASM to coordinate programs, develop common 

application and data management systems, and implement common standards and 

definitions for quality programs. The OST initiative had important implications for the 2009 

SYEI. First, it made youth employment, including summer jobs, a part of key agencies’ 

discussions about OST, so that the youth employment system (DFSS) was part of the multiagency partnerships. Second, the creation of the Youth Ready Chicago website 

(www.youthreadychicago.org) provided a common portal and single point of entry for young 

people to apply for summer (including summer jobs) and after-school programs. Youth 

Ready Chicago also provided a single point of entry for nonprofits and employers looking for 

summer job applicants. In short, it was an electronic infrastructure that could be used in 

organizing the summer jobs program. 

At the same time, the city was reorganizing its youth employment systems. In 2004, the 

Department of Children and Youth Services (CYS) was created, bringing together all of the 

city’s youth-related services in one agency; in 2006, Workforce Investment Act (WIA) youth 

programs were brought into the agency as well. In 2009, CYS combined with adult social 

service programs to create the DFSS, which integrated youth, adult, and senior services into 

a single family-support agency. This brought all of Chicago’s publicly-funded youth 

employment programs – the Kidstart summer jobs program, WIA-funded youth employment 

programs, and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)-funded after-school and youth 

employment programs – together under one administrative entity. Resources for youth 

included regional youth development centers providing skill training and job placement 

assistance, a network of Regional Consortium Coordinators who helped coordinate city and 

nonprofit programs in each of the public school regions, and citywide and regional Youth 

Councils. This consolidation paved the way for a coordinated planning process within the 

Youth Division that began in 2008 and laid the foundation for planning for the 2009 SYEI. 

These efforts were complemented by the formation of the Youth Employment Committee, 

co-chaired by DFSS Commissioner Mary Ellen Caron and a senior executive from Chicago 

Metropolis 2020, a business-sponsored regional economic planning organization. The 

committee presented an opportunity for the youth-serving agencies to better understand 

one another’s capacity and establish a more comprehensive approach to youth employment 

and youth development. 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

24

Asset: Existing Community Networks and Leadership 

Two other key elements set the context for the 2009 SYEI. The first was a substantial 

network of nonprofit organizations and community programs that had experience with youth 

development and summer jobs programs. By 2009, as noted earlier, ASM served roughly 

25,000 teens annually. According to their 2008 annual report, they provided more than 700 

programs in over 60 school and community-based sites, providing summer jobs to 

approximately 6,000 students through the city’s private-sector summer jobs and afterschool programs. Similarly, the Chicago Public Schools, the Parks Department, and DFSS 

had substantial experience running summer jobs and youth development programs. 

Through its CDBG-funded youth programs, DFSS worked with nearly 200 agencies that 

provided after-school programs, counseling, mentoring, recreation and other youth services. 

In short, while the addition of 7,800 ARRA-funded summer jobs in 2009 represented a 

substantial increase and presented new challenges (such as those related to determining 

WIA eligibility), the fact is that over 17,000 young people had participated in summer jobs 

programs in 2008 through hundreds of worksites. Chicago’s experience and infrastructure 

made it more prepared than many other communities for the 2009 effort. 

The other key influence on the 2009 SYEI, according to many of those interviewed, was 

DFSS Commissioner Mary Ellen Caron. Interviewees said that Commissioner Caron insisted 

on providing quality summer work experiences and broadening the network of organizations 

involved in providing work experiences for youth. A partner organization representative 

noted that she was emphatic that young people needed jobs for themselves and to help 

their families, and focused on the skills needed and how to help kids to get them. Caron 

described her commitment to quality: 

I was very clear, we wanted meaningful jobs. We want kids to have specific 

tasks, not just be in a group dumped somewhere. Everyone learned this wasn’t 

supposed to be a make-work program! What I want is for kids to learn what 

they are interested in, or what they are NOT interested in [through summer 

work opportunities]. 

That commitment translated, for example, into early decisions to open the RFP process to 

organizations with no prior WIA experience. While this meant that many Hubs struggled 

with the eligibility requirements, it broadened the base of organizations and employers to 

include nonprofits serving new neighborhoods and cultural institutions. 

As the summer progressed, Commissioner Caron also insisted that eligibility documentation 

challenges should not hinder youth participation. At a critical June DFSS staff meeting, the 

Commissioner authorized staff to streamline the eligibility review process, and, where 

necessary, to allow participants to begin working while eligibility determination was still 

underway (with completion of necessary paperwork to follow). While staff were justifiably 

concerned about ensuring that participant files would pass audit, Caron kept the focus on 

getting young people jobs and made it clear that she would cover disallowed costs with 

other funds. The decision, backed by a careful analysis of the city’s options for covering 

disallowed costs if a participant was found to be ineligible, brought new momentum to the 

effort. A senior DFSS staff person noted, “It was a turning point – it got things moving.” 

While each partner organization had active leaders, DFSS stood at the center of the 2009 

SYEI, and Caron’s leadership provided a critical sense of direction for the agency and the 

SYEI as a whole. 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

25

In sum, four vital building blocks – a history of collaboration among youth-serving agencies, 

an established network of programs and services with SYEP experience, a strong interest in 

a comprehensive OST, and strong leadership – contributed to Chicago’s approach to the 

2009 SYEI and its ability to innovate under pressure. 

PART II 

REINVESTMENT AND RECOVERY ACTIONS AND INNOVATIONS: 

LEADERSHIP AND PARTNERSHIP 

Although the 2009 SYEI was built on a foundation of programs and relationships, the design 

took place in a relatively short time. Between the mid-February passage of the legislation 

and program start-up at the end of May, the DFSS Policy Unit and Youth Division, with the 

partner organizations, crafted a strategy, released an RFP, selected providers, and issued 

the contracts through a Hub and Spoke model. The major element was funding a network 

of Hubs – organizations that would recruit and manage the Spokes (program worksites that 

directly supervised youth and provided summer jobs). DFSS funded 34 Hubs that 

developed and managed approximately 880 worksites around the city. 

Evolution of the Hub and Spoke Model 

Initially, when Federal funding began to seem likely, the OST Partnership and the Youth 

Employment Committee saw it as an opportunity to restructure the delivery of summer 

programs through establishing a new, comprehensive, nonprofit youth intermediary to 

coordinate the city’s youth initiatives. The partner agencies would contract with the new 

intermediary, which would have the capacity to raise money, issue contracts, and pay youth 

directly, with greater flexibility than under the current programs. The city would spend 

roughly a third of the expected funds in 2009, using the balance for year-round activities 

and a substantial expansion of the program in summer 2010.

Once the bill passed, however, it was clear that the funding was to focus on employing 

youth in summer 2009. Without the ability to use the funds over a longer term, and with 

the regulations involved in meeting WIA requirements, the decision was made to manage 

the SYEI through DFSS, which already operated the WIA-funded youth programs.

The next question was how to organize a program designed to serve over 7,000 youth and 

promote high quality summer jobs. Part of the challenge was that, as in most cities this 

year, few DFSS staff had experience with WIA and/or Federally-funded summer jobs 

programs. DFSS managed a small portfolio of year-round WIA-funded youth programs 

through regional youth development centers and contracts with community-based agencies, 

and some WIA program staff at DFSS had been involved in the earlier, JTPA-funded summer 

jobs programs. However, the WIA staff was small, there were questions about the existing 

WIA-funded CBOs’ capacity to manage the scale of the new SYEI, and DFSS’ management 

staff had little or no experience with WIA or the earlier Federally-funded SYEP. 

DFSS was also hampered by a citywide hiring freeze, instituted in response to recessionrelated budget shortfalls. Under the JTPA summer jobs program model, the agency running 

the program hired job developers, youth recruiters, site monitors, and eligibility-verification 

and data entry workers. When the SYEP was a regular feature of Federal workforce 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

26

development, many of those staff returned year after year, bringing their knowledge and 

experience. In 2009, DFSS had to look at other ways to manage the summer operation. 

In that context, a debate within DFSS took place. A number of staff argued that the SYEI 

should be either in-house (staffing up with temporary staff) or through contracts with the 

existing network of WIA youth service providers. They reasoned that these providers knew 

WIA, were best prepared to deal with eligibility determination issues, and were familiar with 

the reporting and financial systems; new, “non-WIA” providers would require substantial 

DFSS training and support. 

While acknowledging the advantages of this approach, others, including the Commissioner, 

argued for casting a broader net. They were skeptical that the limited number of existing 

WIA providers would have the capacity to manage the large number of worksites and 

provide payroll support for the large numbers of youth participants under the expanded 

2009 program. 

At the same time, DFSS leaders saw the summer program as a way to bring new agencies 

and employers into the youth program network while providing new opportunities for young 

people. They wanted to provide summer jobs across a broad range of neighborhoods and to 

a variety of target populations. They were concerned that focusing only on existing 

providers would leave many neighborhoods and populations with limited opportunities. To 

accomplish their goals, they argued, the city needed to open up the process to a broader 

group of organizations through an open, competitive RFP process. 

Setting Criteria for the Hubs 

After the decision was made to go with the Hub model and broaden the RFP process to 

include both new and existing WIA providers, additional design decisions were needed. 

One major concern was ensuring that Hub agencies had the financial stability to manage a 

summer payroll and could secure resources to pay youth in advance of the city’s 

reimbursement. While the city’s comptroller had promised a five-day turnaround on SYEI 

invoices, Hubs serving substantial numbers of youth would need to be able to cover a 

sizable payroll every week. Thus, Hub eligibility was restricted to organizations with an 

annual operating budget of $500,000 or more. This eliminated some small organizations 

from the pool, but ensuring financial accountability and stability was considered paramount. 

Smaller organizations, it was reasoned, could become involved as Spokes through a link to 

a larger Hub. 

Similarly, while the city wanted to reach out to new organizations, there was also concern 

that if DFSS had to manage too many Hub contracts, it would be the equivalent of directly 

managing the worksites. Thus, each Hub had to be willing to serve at least 100 young 

people under their contract. Again, while this eliminated some smaller organizations, it 

helped to ensure program manageability. At the same time, it put even more of a premium 

on financial stability, since program providers would need to be able to carry a payroll of at 

least 100 summer workers. 

Staff recognized that decisions involved trade-offs that could affect program goals and 

quality. One characterized the trade-offs as follows: 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

27

From a contracting perspective, our choices came down to time, money, and 

quality – and you can usually only get two of the three. ... In this case, for 

example, the need for a budget minimum excluded some providers – that had 

quality implications. Financial security also meant some neighborhoods might 

not be served. But we also had to consider time: Can you afford to hold 

hands, walk through the process with small organizations that don’t know 

what a single audit or A133 is? We chose one kind of quality, but you exclude 

people who may not have the capacity to jump through the bureaucratic 

hoops. 

A Special Emphasis on Serving Out-of-School Youth

In addition to the Hub eligibility criteria, the RFP also laid out guidelines that reflected the 

commitment to providing quality work experiences to a broad array of disadvantaged youth. 

Following WIA requirements, programs were encouraged to place “special emphasis” on 

recruiting out-of-school youth and youth with barriers to employment (youth lacking basic 

literacy skills, pregnant or parenting teens, gang-affiliated youth, youth in TANF families, 

etc.). Chicago achieved a high level of success in serving out-of-school youth - more than 

40% of participants were in this category (see Exhibit 1). This may be a reflection of the 

Hub approach, where there was a deliberate effort to select Hubs that served high-need 

populations and were located in high-need neighborhoods. Programs were also expected to 

assess participants’ basic skills and work readiness and to participate in the statewide, 

online work readiness assessments that the state of Illinois was conducting for the SYEI. 

Reflecting youth development principles, the RFP also required Hubs to hire WIA-eligible 

young people, aged 21 to 24, as worksite supervisors in any worksite with more than ten 

youth workers. Finally, the RFP emphasized the goals of developing green jobs and 

providing access to summer employment across all neighborhoods.

Youth Ready Chicago Website 

In another connection to the city’s broader youth development efforts, youth interested in a 

summer job were required to apply through the new Youth Ready Chicago website. The 

Hubs were expected to use the website database for recruitment. The website allowed 

young people to indicate the types of jobs or programs they were interested in as well as 

their location preferences. The website was also seen as a vehicle to recruit employers, and 

it was assumed that DFSS would provide Hubs with lists of interested employers. Since the 

website included the summer programs operated by the OST partners, it provided a single 

point of entry for young people to most of the city’s major summer youth programs. 

Building a Team: Working Groups 

As DFSS developed the RFP, it organized working groups to focus on issues such as 

eligibility, work readiness, worksite requirements, and data. The process involved virtually 

all DFSS youth division staff – an early step in the “all hands on deck” strategy that 

characterized the agency’s approach to the SYEI. As one DFSS staffer noted, “There just 

wasn’t enough time for a lot of hierarchy.” The resulting team-building and cross-training 

process for the agency’s youth programs was regularly cited as one of the unexpected 

benefits of the SYEI’s experience of innovating under pressure. 

Implementing the Hub and Spoke Design 

Once the RFP was released, the focus shifted to implementation. The first step was to select 

the Hubs. Of the 56 organizations that applied, 35 were selected (one later dropped out, 

leaving 34 Hubs). As with program design, selecting program providers involved choices. 

Initially, DFSS administrators were tempted to fund all of the proposals, in line with the goal 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

28

of bringing in new organizations. However, with $40 million in proposed programs and $16 

million in available funds, choices had to be made. Some were straightforward. Some 

applicants did not meet the $500,000 operating budget minimum or planned to serve fewer 

than the required 100 youth. Reviewers also looked at capacity to ramp up and deliver a 

quality program. “We didn’t fund a lot of start-ups,” one noted. “We didn’t see those as 

working.” The agency also looked at target populations (homeless youth, foster care, gangaffiliated), neighborhoods, and types of institutions served. The goal was to provide access 

to programs across the city and ensure that some of the most disadvantaged youth would 

be served. 

The result was a mix of organizations, from traditional community-based youth programs to 

major cultural centers, each serving from 100 to over 2,000 youth. Of the 34 Hubs, several 

(among the largest) were “sister” agencies involved in the OST Partnership and the Youth 

Employment Committee, including the Chicago Public Schools, the Park District, and 

Chicago Public Housing. ASM was also one of the largest Hubs. Others included existing 

WIA program providers, nonprofit community development organizations, community-based 

agencies, faith-based organizations, and for-profit workforce development firms. 

Some Hubs essentially served as large-scale funding agencies for a subsidiary network of 

programs. The Chicago Public Schools, for example, issued an RFP to all district schools to 

serve as worksites and then funded programs at over 50 schools. Placements ranged from 

school office jobs to programs providing complex work-based learning experiences. The 

Chicago Public Housing Authority contracted with over 30 programs and worksites, including 

Head Start centers, Boys and Girls Clubs, real estate offices, and catering firms. The 

Chicago Park District operated over 100 sites, with jobs ranging from park maintenance to 

day camp counselors. The Local Initiative Support Corporation (LISC) worked with over 100 

sites, including nonprofit organizations, schools, small businesses, and law offices. 

Other Hubs operated smaller programs, sometimes solely within their own organization. 

The Museum of Science and Industry trained about 75 students and employed them as 

guides and peer science educators at the Museum and in the community. La Casa Norte, a 

nonprofit serving homeless youth, placed 100 youth in 25 businesses and programs; 

Phalanx Community Services, a community-based organization, served approximately 150 

youth at 18 sites, including the University of Chicago Medical Center, Boys and Girls Club 

camp programs, and a landscaping firm. 

Altogether, the 34 Hubs brought with them or recruited over 880 worksites, including 300 

nonprofit organizations, 285 government agency sites, 205 private businesses, and 90 faithbased organizations (generally operating summer camps and/or childcare programs). 

Overall, DFSS staff were pleased with the mix of organizations and opportunities. 

Chicago Summer Worksites 

 Private businesses: 50 food establishments, 35 retail businesses, 

20 financial/insurance firms, ten law firms, five hotels. 

 Nonprofit and public institutions: 170 community development and social service 

organizations, 117 Chicago Park District sites, 100 programs for children and youth, 

92 public and private schools, and offices of 62 elected officials. 

 Other specialized fields: 20 health-care-related organizations, 

20 arts/media organizations, 17 colleges and universities, ten landscaping/agricultural 

organizations, nine science/technology institutions, and seven museums. 

From “Program Summary: Youth Ready Chicago Summer Jobs (ARRA)” (Updated: December 2009) 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

29

There were surprises in terms of recruiting both worksites and youth. DFSS had assumed 

that most Hubs would need assistance to recruit worksites and would use employer lists 

generated through the Youth Ready Chicago website. In fact, most Hubs had already 

identified worksites – often businesses and nonprofits that had been involved in other 

programs. Thus the challenge of recruiting employers was less serious than anticipated; 

but some employers who had signed on to the website hoping to hire youth were 

disappointed. DFSS worked to link those employers with Hubs that might have young 

people still looking for jobs. Similarly, while all youth were required to register through the 

Youth Ready Chicago website, some Hubs or worksites had already identified eligible youth 

for their summer slots (such as those who were already participating in their organizations’ 

programs). In other cases, the registration process worked as expected: Museum of 

Science staff, for example, said that DFSS had sent a list of 5,600 applicants interested in 

museum work from the database. One result was that the recruitment of eligible youth 

went relatively smoothly, at least at the Hubs and worksites visited for this study. At the 

same time, the fact that Hubs and worksites drew on existing relationships suggests that 

young people with pre-existing relationships with Hubs or worksites appeared to have had 

an advantage in securing a slot. That may have been helpful in 2009, given the short time 

frame, but efforts may be needed to level the playing field (and to reach the most 

disconnected youth) in future years. 

Between mid-April and the end of May, DFSS staff made the initial Hub selections and 

presented them for Workforce Board approval. They met with each Hub in May to orient 

them to the program, negotiated contract terms, and shifted some program slots around, in 

part to ensure that sufficient slots were available to the community-based partners. DFSS 

also set up staff teams to work with the Hubs, assigning a staff liaison for each. According 

to DFSS staff, the procurement office moved the contracting process along quickly, so that 

by the end of June, most contracts were in place. 

Due to the rapid start-up, DFSS had limited opportunity to work with Hubs on program 

design, encourage innovation, or offer training. One DFSS staff member noted, “If there are 

creative models, it is because of what the Hubs brought with them.” 

The Eligibility Challenge 

The most significant challenge was documenting applicants’ WIA eligibility, according to 

DFSS, Hub, and worksite staff interviewees. The challenge was not in finding eligible youth, 

but in collecting the documentation required,18 reviewing the file, and entering the 

information into the Illinois Workforce Development System (IWDS), the state’s online 

database, in time for young people to start their summer placements. 

In the year-round WIA program, eligibility determination was manageable, with smaller 

participant numbers and time to gather records. The quick start-up for the SYEI, the larger 

numbers of youth involved, and the limited time to move youth on to six-week jobs made 

for a very different situation. In addition, the SYEI and WIA were new to most of those 

involved in 2009: as noted above, the JTPA summer programs had staff (usually teachers 

on summer break) who came back year after year and knew the eligibility rules. 

 

18 Required documentation included proof of age (driver’s license, birth certificate, school records); residence; 

household size and family income (tax returns, pay stubs); welfare or food stamp eligibility; selective service and 

work status; and barriers to employment. 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

30

The 2009 plan was for the Hubs to assemble documentation and for DFSS to review files 

and, in most cases, enter the data into IWDS. The state’s Department of Commerce and 

Economic Opportunity provided three days of WIA training for DFSS staff and the Hubs; the 

small WIA staff within DFSS provided additional training for DFSS youth division staff. DFSS 

then organized staff into teams, with each team responsible for assisting a group of Hubs. 

Hubs struggled to collect documentation and ensure that applicants met eligibility 

guidelines. Some parents were reluctant to provide pay stubs or social security numbers; 

documents were not readily available; and the rules governing who was included in 

household income were often perceived as unclear. Moreover, young people who were 

eligible for other kinds of Federal aid (notably, the Free and Reduced Cost Lunch program in 

the public schools) were not necessarily eligible under WIA. Even when a family was clearly 

eligible (for example, the mother received food stamps), young people often had to get a 

letter from their parents confirming that the family was still supporting them. Some were 

not sure that a six-week temporary job was worth the effort of collecting the 

documentation. 

DFSS staff tried to assist, but many noted that “the devil was in the details – every youth 

has a different life story.” Because many Hubs were new to WIA, DFSS staff had to review 

each record before approving an applicant and entering data. And, because most DFSS 

teams had limited WIA experience, they were not able to operate and provide assistance 

independently as had been hoped; instead, the small WIA staff became the “go-to” 

contacts. 

There were additional data entry problems. Not only was DFSS short-handed, but the IWDS 

is old and regularly crashed. It took up to 30 minutes to enter a record which, if 

incomplete, had to be redone. In the end, DFSS hired temps, used interns, and arranged 

for WIA-experienced Hubs to enter their own participants into the IWDS (DFSS managed 

the process for newer Hubs). 

Responding to the Eligibility Challenge

Cross-Training Youth Division Staff 

Responding to these challenges required innovating under pressure. On the positive side, 

DFSS staff saw the process as an important team-building experience. Senior staff noted 

that the SYEI provided an opportunity to cross-train the youth division staff and share skills 

among programs. As one said, the experience “built our capacity to train people and 

connect the pieces” and helped them move towards a more comprehensive approach. Staff 

members also expressed pride in working their way through a challenge. 

Eligibility Fairs 

DFSS and the Hubs tried various ways to streamline the process. The Chicago Public 

Schools’ strategy, in cooperation with DFSS, was to target students whose families were 

already enrolled in the food stamp program (and hence eligible under WIA rules). Another 

strategy was “eligibility fairs” with some Hubs, with the goal of completing much of the 

eligibility process in one setting. DFSS staff, for example, took part in the Chicago Housing 

Authority fair. Applicants were asked to bring as much of their paperwork as possible, and 

staff could review documentation and help collect needed paperwork (though they could not 

make final determinations). The fairs were only moderately successful: too many applicants 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

31

still lacked needed documents. One suggestion was to set up future events so that staff 

could access public records (welfare agency records, vital records, etc.) online. 

Flexible Start 

Meanwhile, worksites were waiting for workers and young people were anxious to begin 

jobs. By late June, as noted earlier, the Commissioner directed the staff to allow young 

people to begin working before their paperwork was completed, if it was reasonably likely 

that they were eligible. That decision allowed Hubs, applicants, and DFSS to move forward. 

Team Approach 

Hard work, overtime, and the “all hands on deck” approach resolved the eligibility 

challenges.19 DFSS and Hub staff put in unpaid overtime, including during weekends and 

evenings when the IWDS system was less overloaded. They considered this a good 

investment. One noted, “It’s all definitely worth it! These kids are all working who wouldn’t 

be [otherwise].” Clearly, a major element in the success of the 2009 SYEI was this “beyond 

the call of duty” commitment. 

The Impact of the Eligibility Challenge 

The eligibility challenge took time away from program design, training, and monitoring, with 

a likely impact on program quality. For DFSS, time that could have been spent ensuring 

that Hubs and worksites were implementing programs successfully and meeting 

requirements was spent addressing eligibility issues. Similarly, several Hubs noted that the 

time spent on documentation meant that they could not begin worksite monitoring until 

mid-July. 

The eligibility challenge affected the Hubs in other ways. At one Hub visited for this study, 

staff had planned substantial orientation programs, with up to a week of interviews, 

meetings with parents, and workplace skills training. Because of the certification and 

enrollment delays, this training had to be reduced to a single day. Some Hub interviewees 

also noted that the rush to find eligible youth and move them into jobs meant that there 

was less time than agencies wanted for careful matching of youth to jobs that fit their 

interests and skills. 

Finally, several DFSS and Hub staff noted that the lines between eligible and ineligible 

young people often seemed arbitrary: “Someone might miss the cut by $200 or $400. 

There’s a cutoff and there’s no room to breathe around it.” Given that income eligibility 

levels varied, and were often determined by who happened to be living in the home at the 

time, there was a strong sense that eligibility rules needed to be simplified, to make the 

SYEI easier to administer and, perhaps, fairer. 

Managing through Cash Flow Issues at the Hubs 

The Hubs’ other major implementation challenge was financial management, particularly the 

need to advance funds to pay young people while waiting for reimbursement from the city. 

While none of the Hubs considered this insurmountable, most – particularly smaller 

community-based organizations – saw the lack of advance financing as a challenge. 

The timing of the RFP and contracting process meant that Hubs could not use summer funds 

to hire staff to plan and implement the program unless they had other sources of funding. 

 

19Working through eligibility was often easier for larger agencies that operated multiple programs – youth who 

were ineligible under WIA guidelines could be moved into a slot in one of the non-ARRA-funded programs. 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

32

Several interviewees said that they had decided not to apply as Hubs because of the need 

for upfront funding. For smaller agencies, the addition of 100 or more summer employees 

had other financial impacts as well, including significant increases in payroll processing, 

workers’ compensation insurance, and unemployment insurance costs. Finally, and perhaps 

most significantly, agencies were expected to have funds to pay young people weekly or biweekly while waiting for reimbursement. The largest agencies were less likely to be 

affected by adding a few hundred short-term employees and were generally able to “front” 

the funds for payroll. The smaller Hubs tended to call on (or expand) existing lines of credit 

to cover payroll. Some adopted a phased intake process in which small groups of youth 

entered the program at a time to minimize financial impact. At Central States SER, for 

example, youth entered in successive cohorts, rather than all at once. 

The Summer Experience: Work and Learning 

The worksites provided a range of experiences, from relatively traditional summer 

placements with minimal enrichment to work that engaged young people in challenging 

tasks and in learning. The sites visited – a dozen worksites under the supervision of seven 

different Hubs – made consistent efforts to ensure that the work addressed a real need; 

included interactions with caring, competent adults (supervisors and/or program staff); 

supported the development of practical, work-related skills; and showed young people how 

their job was connected to long-term careers. Appendix 1 summarizes the worksites 

visited; this section offers examples of meaningful work and learning-rich work experiences. 

Meaningful Work. The Hubs’ SYEI goal might be summarized as “providing a quality work 

experience in a meaningful job.” The Hubs and worksites visited reflected that value. Some 

Hubs took a direct role in training and preparing participants as a way to contribute to 

meaningful work; others left much of the training and design responsibilities to their 

worksite partners. 

Workplace Skills 

Phalanx Family Services, a community-based organization serving the south side, placed 

approximately 180 youth in jobs in 18 sites, from a landscaping firm to the University of 

Chicago Medical Center. Participants took part in a day of training at Phalanx (reduced from 

a planned five days) where they learned about workplace expectations and money 

management (e.g., how to cash a paycheck).20 

Private Sector Employment 

Central States SER, a community-based organization serving Chicago’s Hispanic community, 

placed greater emphasis on training. SER focused its placements on private businesses – 

including a florist, a funeral home, and law and insurance firms – in hopes that some jobs 

might lead to ongoing employment. SER’s participants spent their first five days in an 

orientation and work skills training program. Youth then worked 16 hours a week at their 

placement, with an additional four hours a week of enrichment activities. 

Serving Homeless Youth 

La Casa Norte, a community-based program focusing on homeless youth, provided training 

and services for summer participants, combined with 20-27 hours per week at worksites. 

The training program provided 30 hours of instruction over the summer in life skills 

(including financial literacy), communications skills, job search, and workplace skills/job 

 

20 Most Phalanx worksites participated in initial half-day training sessions, where Phalanx staff talked about labor 

laws, payroll, and reporting as well as about the program’s expectations of a positive experience for participants. 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

33

retention. In one activity, homeless youth participants prepared a play on the challenges of 

being homeless and produced it for neighborhood residents. This helped the youth reflect 

on the issues that they were facing and built bridges between them and the communities in 

which they lived. Two poems written as part of this project appear in Appendix 2. 

Community College Integration 

After School Matters (ASM), the Chicago Public Schools, and the Chicago Housing Authority 

delegated participant training and support largely to their worksites. ASM, as noted earlier, 

trained worksite providers on effective youth development practices, and the Chicago 

Housing Authority arranged for approximately 250 participants to take community college 

classes as part of its program. In most cases, however, the worksites recruited participants 

and integrated training or educational activities at the worksites. 

Career Development for the Visually Impaired 

The Chicago Lighthouse is a 100 year old agency serving individuals who are blind or 

visually impaired. Funded through ASM, the Lighthouse provided jobs for 13 visually 

impaired young people: one was a worksite supervisor and the others worked four days a 

week in various departments. One youth updated the agency’s database of adaptive 

technology resources, researching products and downloading images from manufacturers’ 

websites for the database. Two guided visitors to the agency and gave presentations at the 

agency’s summer camp. Others worked as child development program aides with visually 

impaired children. In addition, all the youth spent one day a week on an intergenerational 

enrichment project which engaged youth and seniors in interviews with one another and 

discussions about intergenerational stereotyping. (The interviews and discussions were 

being compiled as an educational resource.) Youth also participated in four days of 

orientation and regularly met with the coordinator to assess progress towards goals. 

“Success,” the coordinator said, “is when our summer youth make progress towards their 

goals. We want them to see how their job fits the big picture, and we want them to leave 

with some skills and work experience. It is hard for visually impaired youth to get work 

experience – so this is very important.” 

Gaining Research Skills 

The Survey Lab at the University of Chicago’s Social Science Division collects data for social 

science research projects. Funded through Phalanx Family Services, the Survey Lab 

employed five youth in a study of community resources in University-area neighborhoods. 

After 12 hours of training, the youth, working alongside University students, documented 

the businesses and organizations at each address, checked them against the project 

database, and used a cell phone-based application to send updated information to the 

project database. (Training topics included an orientation to the Lab, confidentiality issues, 

work expectations, and the project’s purpose and goals; a major emphasis was on 

communication and interpersonal skills. Staff emphasized that participants represented the 

University). Working in two shifts each day, the youth selected streets to walk. They 

learned about the neighborhoods, explained the project to residents, and learned about 

building a community resource database. Participants said that they learned planning and 

communication skills and improved their understanding of the neighborhoods. One said 

that the project had helped him “learn different ways to approach people” – a vital 21st 

Century workforce skill – and become “more open-minded” toward people from other 

neighborhoods. 

Learning-Rich Work Experiences. While some worksites focused on providing 

employment with an opportunity for learning, others developed learning-rich work 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

34

experiences. A number of these sites defined themselves as youth development programs 

as much as summer work experiences. 

Engaging Youth in Science 

At the Museum of Science and Industry, which was both Hub and worksite, 75 ARRAsupported youth joined 25 others in the Science Achievers Youth Peer Educators program. 

The Museum, one of the country’s oldest and best-known interactive science museums, has 

a history of science-based programming. The 2009 funding allowed the Museum to 

quadruple the size of its summer internship program, a long-standing program that 

integrates work and learning in preparing youth to serve as peer science educators at the 

Museum and present science programs at Head Start, parks, libraries, camps, and other 

community sites. Participants began the program with three days of orientation and 

workplace skills training. Through the summer they received an hour of work readiness, an 

hour of college readiness, and two hours of leadership development training each week, 

along with training on the topics that they would be teaching. Training sessions were active 

and engaging, and included activities such as ice-breakers, group exercises, and journaling. 

At work, young people hosted exhibits at the Museum, conducted science demonstrations 

for touring youth groups, and made presentations at community sites. Through the 

program, the Museum furthered its mission of engaging youth in science while interns 

expanded their work-related skills. A staff member said, “It’s very satisfying to see many of 

the kids come out of their shells and learn to make presentations, something they have 

never done.” 

Engaging Youth in Health 

The Student Health Force program was one of the larger and more sophisticated work and 

learning programs visited. Funded through the Chicago Public Schools, Student Health 

Force brought together 100 young people from four high schools for a six-week program 

that prepared them to serve as community health educators. The goal was to educate 

youth about health issues affecting their communities – such as poor nutrition, obesity, 

diabetes, and asthma – and provide leadership and communications skills so that they could 

help educate their families and peers. Participants learned about health, nutrition, and 

fitness through classroom and computer-based lessons, supplemented by leadership 

training, financial literacy instruction, CPR training, visits to hospitals and Northwestern 

University Medical School, and presentations by speakers, including a neurosurgeon, an 

American Medical Association representative, and the Assistant US Surgeon General. 

Learning was livened up through Health Trivia contests, dance performances (to 

demonstrate alternative forms of exercise), and weekly skits by each of the four schools on 

what they had learned. Students prepared a presentation on a health/fitness topic as a final 

project, with the goal of developing materials to use after the summer in presentations with 

their families, in area middle schools, and in community settings. Participants also had 

opportunities to learn about health careers and build relationships with students from other 

parts of the city. They said the program helped them understand their own health and gave 

them needed skills: “I got a better sense of how my own body works,” one noted. “And, I 

want to work with kids – this gives me something to bring to the table.” 

Learning and Doing 

On a smaller scale, the I Am You Boutique provided both work experience and learning, 

teaching about a dozen young women at a time the ins and outs of running a retail store as 

well as basic skills in clothing and jewelry design. Funded through the Chicago Housing 

Authority and one of its sub-Hubs (Employment and Employer Services), the program 

operates the store as a training ground for low-income women. Youth worked in the store 

and participated in workplace skills training. During the site visit, the youth conducted role 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

35

playing exercises on how to greet customers, ask what they are interested in, show the 

merchandise, and make a sale. A discussion followed about what was done well and what 

needed to be improved. One observer called it an example of learning and doing in a 

positive, supportive, team-building atmosphere. 

An Overall Success

By summer’s end, over 7,800 youth had been placed in ARRA-funded summer jobs (nearly 

20,000 participated in the city’s combined summer jobs program with funding from ARRA, 

the city, and private sources). The large majority of ARRA-funded participants (91%) were 

ages 14 to 21; over 40% were out-of-school youth. Placements lasted an average of 6.4 

weeks, at an average of 23 hours per week, with an average wage of $8.70 per hour. The 

city estimated that it had paid over $10 million in participant wages. 

Based on DFSS surveys of participants and employers21, the SYEI provided a quality 

experience for those involved. See Exhibit 1 for the profile of participants. Among youth 

respondents: 

 Over 90% rated their overall program experience as good or excellent; 

a similar percentage rated supervision as good or excellent. 

 Over 90% said that the program helped prepare them for jobs or careers, 

and nearly 75% said that the program had helped them academically. 

 Over 80% said that the program helped them develop teamwork skills; 

two-thirds (66%) said that it had taught them how to conduct themselves in the 

workplace. Substantial percentages also mentioned gains in public speaking (50%), 

problem-solving (41%), personal finance (38%), and computer skills (35%). 

 Over half reported contributing earnings towards household expenses and 

savings; three quarters said they would have been unemployed over the summer 

without the program. 

Exhibit 1 

Participant Profile22

Youth Participants Percent

Gender

 Male 42%

 Female 58%

Age

 14-18 64%

 19-21 27%

 22-24 9%

Race

 White 11%

 Black 74%

 Hispanic 18%

 Asian 2%

School Status

 In-School 57%

 Out-of-School 43%

Employers were similarly positive and saw themselves as partners in the city’s youth 

development efforts. Nearly 90% of those responding to the survey were satisfied with 

 

21 Surveys were completed by 919 youth participants and 196 employers. 22 From Denes and Raden, Youth Ready Chicago Participant Survey, p. 1 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

36

their youth workers, and 92% would participate again. Over 85% rated their summer 

employees’ skills as average, good, or excellent in nine workplace-related skills areas: 

satisfactory task completion, timely task completion, ability to learn new skills, interpersonal 

and teamwork skills, positive behavior and attitude, creative thinking and problem-solving, 

communications skills, initiative, and punctuality and attendance. 

When the study team asked DFSS and Hub staff to assess Chicago’s 2009 SYEI, almost 

everyone expressed pride and satisfaction with their accomplishments and those of their 

coworkers. One DFSS staffer commented, “I’ve been surprised at peoples’ stick-to-it-ness. 

I’m so impressed with [the Hubs].” Others praised their colleagues, with one commenting, 

“When we looked really exhausted, someone would come and help. We uplifted each 

other.” Most had recommendations for improvement, with a particularly strong focus on 

reform of the WIA eligibility rules and the need for sufficient time for planning and start-up, 

but everyone pointed to their success in placing thousands of young people in summer jobs, 

providing them with work, learning experiences, and wages in a tough economy. The 

ultimate pride was in successfully serving their community. One person summed it up: 

President Obama said we each needed to dig deeper – well, Chicago did it! 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

37

CHICAGO 

APPENDIX 1

Hub 

Organization Program Strategy Sample Worksite 

Experiences Highlights 

Chicago Lighthouse for the 

Blind 

Visually impaired youth 

worked at 100 year old 

agency serving visually 

impaired children and adults. 

Jobs included assisting in IT 

(updating an assistive devices 

inventory); children’s 

programs (classroom aide), 

and public relations (guiding 

tours). All youth participated 

in a project with senior 

citizens served by the agency 

aimed at overcoming 

stereotypes. 

Workplace 

skills/expectations, 

communications skills 

(“I learned to speak 

up”), interpersonal skills 

(“patience”) and 

intergenerational 

knowledge/understandin

g. 

“This job is teaching me 

how to be more patient, 

dealing with different 

kinds of kids, speaking 

up more. Now I can say 

I have the patience to 

work with kids.” 

After School 

Matters 

Selected worksites/ 

program providers 

through RFP process. 

Trained providers on 

youth development/ 

program design. 

St. Agatha Family 

Empowerment 

Youth served as counselors in 

a summer camp program that 

many of them had attended 

when they were younger. 

Leadership and 

mentorship. 

“I learned to be patient 

and a leader. When 

younger kids look up to 

you, you have to become 

a leader.”

La Casa Norte Provided initial training 

and 10-12 hours of 

additional training over 

6-8 weeks, including 

financial literacy and up 

to six Illinois Work 

Readiness Training 

modules (based on 

needs) 

La Casa Norte 

Youth developed a play in 

which they explained their 

experiences as homeless 

youth and presented it to the 

community. 

Youth development and 

financial literacy. 

“This has helped me think 

about who I am and what 

I can be.” 

Central 

States SER 

Provided five-day 

orientation and training 

four hours/week 

enrichment. Taught 

youth to conduct “Green 

Audits” and expected 

them to audit their 

worksites. 

Local Funeral Home 

Placement as assistants in a 

local funeral home, greeting 

families, assisting with 

services, and doing routine 

filing and paperwork. 

Workplace and 

communications skills. 

Chicago 

Housing 

Authority 

Selected sub-Hubs that 

identified worksites, 

operated programs, and 

provided training and 

support. Some youth 

attend community 

college classes one day 

per week. 

Charles Haynes Family 

Information Center 

Youth in technology training 

program (operated by TEC 

Services and Best Buy’s Geek 

Squad) learned workplace 

skills and expectations and 

computer software in 15-

minute modules that were 

tailored to youth needs. 

Workplace skills and 

expectations; broad 

concepts and specifics 

about using software. 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

38

Hub 

Organization Program Strategy Sample Worksite 

Experiences Highlights 

I Am You Boutique 

Work experience in a retail 

store, plus entrepreneurship, 

customer service, and 

clothing and jewelry design 

training. 

Business skills and youth 

development. 

“I was expecting to just 

work in a store but I am 

learning a lot.” 

Student Health Force Program 

100 students from four high 

schools trained as community 

health educators, focusing on 

fitness, obesity, and 

management of chronic 

disease (diabetes, asthma, 

etc.). They had classroom 

instruction on health topics; 

participated in fitness training 

(dance, sports); made weekly 

presentations; and developed 

15 minute 

presentations/teaching 

modules which they were 

expected to present in the fall 

at middle schools and 

community settings. Program 

included instruction on 

workplace skills, leadership 

and communications, financial 

literacy, and CPR. 

Workplace, leadership, 

communications skills; 

knowledge of positive 

health and nutrition 

practices. Exposure to 

students from other 

neighborhoods. 

“I’m learning new ways to 

eat, how to better 

exercise, how to teach 

other people. I’m also 

learning CPR – I can help 

someone someday.” 

“I got a better sense of 

how my own body works. 

And I want to work with 

kids – this gives me 

something to bring to the 

table.” 

Chicago 

Public 

Schools 

Selected school-based 

sites through a districtwide RFP process. Sites 

ran programs, provided 

orientation/ training. 

Chicago Agricultural High 

School 

Students from the year-round 

Agricultural High School 

program worked on summer 

tasks across the school’s 

career pathways, including 

animal husbandry, 

commercial agriculture, 

aquaculture, and beekeeping. 

They also staffed the school 

market which sells produce 

and other school products to 

the public. 

Basic work skills (sense of 

responsibility). 

Opportunity to learn 

content and skills outside 

of the students’ own 

pathway/major. 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

39

Hub 

Organization Program Strategy Sample Worksite 

Experiences Highlights 

Museum of 

Science and 

Industry 

In-house worksite. 

Provided orientation and 

training for participants. 

MSI Youth Peer Educator 

Program 

75 youth trained and worked 

as peer educators at the 

Museum and in the 

community. Youth received 

training in science topics as 

well as team-building, other 

workplace skills, and college 

readiness. Youth served as 

guides and instructors for 

children’s groups at the 

museum and provided similar 

science education to groups 

of young children in 

community settings. 

Science education, college 

preparation, youth 

development. 

“You learn every day 

here. I learned that Pluto 

is not a planet. More 

importantly, I learned 

that I really like science. 

I didn’t like science in 

school.” 

“I am learning about 

chemistry and polymers, 

but also about kids’ 

attention spans and how 

to teach them.” 

“I’ve learned about 

myself, college readiness, 

and character-building.” 

Phalanx Family Services 

Youth served as office 

assistants at Phalanx, 

providing support for the 

finance and payroll 

operations. 

Basic work skills and 

office skills (Excel, 

PowerPoint). 

“I’m learning about 

reliability, being prompt, 

and doing quality work in 

a short amount of time – 

the need to double or 

triple check to make sure 

it’s right, but still meet 

deadlines. I’m also 

learning patience from 

the case managers – they 

are so patient and 

supportive. I’m thinking 

about becoming a case 

manager – seeing the 

rewards of helping 

people.”

Phalanx 

Family 

Services 

Provided one day 

orientation/training for 

participants, half- day 

training for worksites. 

University of Chicago Medical 

Center 

Youth worked in the Human 

Resources and Occupational 

Medicine Departments as 

office assistants, file clerks, 

and receptionists. Received 

an orientation to hospital 

policies, confidentiality, and 

work expectations, and 

toured the facility. Several 

youth are in nursing assistant 

programs during the school 

year. 

Basic work skills and 

hospital routines – filing, 

communications skills, 

etc. Supervisor took 

youth on a tour of the 

hospital as part of 

orientation. 

“I’m learning about 

occupational medicine.” 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

40

Hub 

Organization Program Strategy Sample Worksite 

Experiences Highlights 

(Phalanx 

continued) 

University of Chicago Survey 

Lab 

Youth collected data on a 

project to build a database of 

community resources in six 

south side Chicago 

neighborhoods. They walked 

the neighborhoods, working 

from a map/grid system, to 

document resources 

(businesses, organizations, 

etc.) at each address. 

Basic work skills, 

especially in 

communications– youth 

workers are viewed as 

representatives of the 

University to the 

community. 

“This helps me with social 

skills, communications 

skills. I’m learning 

different ways to 

approach people. I’m 

learning to be more openminded, more accepting.” 

“In the beginning it was 

just a job. Now it’s more 

a development 

opportunity, providing 

useful information to my 

community.”
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

41

CHICAGO 

APPENDIX 2

POEMS WRITTEN AS PART OF A CHICAGO PROGRAM FOR HOMELESS YOUTH WHO ARE 

DOCUMENTING THEIR LIFE STORIES AND PUTTING THEM INTO A PLAY THAT THEY WILL 

SHARE WITH THE COMMUNITY 

I am 

I am from days of watching Arthur 

From playing with my easy-bake-oven and dressing up my Barbie dolls. 

I am from the smell of Puerto Rican food. 

From the Blossoms in the park where I use to play as a kid. 

I am from no traditions and long brown hair, from Maria and Servando and being a Salazar 

the rest of my life. 

I am from Public Elementary Schools and having to walk miles to get there. 

From being out of school more then I was in it. 

From don’t do this and don’t do that. 

I am from a religion I don’t understand. 

A Mexican family I never met, tacos and refried beans. 

From the time I traveled from state to state...The loneliness of traveling by myself. 

I come from the fear of being alone and the fear of staying there. 

I was a lonely little girl. 

I am now a happy mother. 

That’s life....or is it? 

I am from the struggle 

From the power of poverty 

I am from the gang signs that stand on the side of my building 

And the dirt from the empty lot 

I am from evil and good 

From Lucifer and Jesus and the planet earth 

I am from the eviction of 99 and the come up of 2009 

From keep your head up and never say never 

I am from the hood 

I am from Chicago 

From sour limes and sweet watermelon 

From losing my sister because of a custody battle to the pain that will never stop hurting 

until she is found 

I am from the fear of poverty and dying as a poor man to the richness of knowing that I 

made it this far 

I was a dumb kid 

I am a smart and wise MAN. 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

42

 CASE STUDY 

INNOVATING UNDER PRESSURE: 

THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT

2009 Summer Youth Employment Initiative 

Detroit 

Prepared by: 

The Center for Youth and Communities 

Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

Brandeis University 

Waltham, Massachusetts 

June 2010
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

43

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The Detroit case study was made possible by additional funding from The Skillman 

Foundation and The Kresge Foundation. Without the Foundation’s financial and substantive 

contributions and leadership, this report would not have been possible. A special thank you 

to the leadership of The Skillman Foundation: Carol Goss, President and CEO, Tonya Allen, 

Vice President, Program, Marie Colombo, Senior Program Officer, Knowledge Management, 

Ed Egnatios, Senior Program Officer, Good Neighborhoods, and William Hanson, Director of 

Communication.

A special acknowledgement goes to all members of Detroit’s Youth Employment 

Consortium and the leadership team for the Summer Youth Employment Program’s 

implementation: 

 City Connect Detroit: Geneva J. Williams, EdD, President and CEO, Dierk L. Hall, 

Vice President, Laurie Ryan, Vice President and Senior Consultant, Pat WT Euseary, 

Vice President, Communications and Operations, Glenda Myhand, Chief 

Administrative Officer, and Sherry McGee, SYEI Program Director. 

 Youth Development Commission: Shelly Norman-Hill, President 

 Detroit Workforce Development Department: Larry Hightower, Director and 

Melvin Gupton, Deputy Director

We would also like to thank University of Michigan, School of Social Work, Good 

Neighborhoods Technical Assistance Center, for collaboration on the design of their 

Detroit summer youth employment evaluation and for sharing the results for incorporation 

in this report. Thank you Trina Williams Shanks, PhD, Professor. 

Leadership and support from the State of Michigan, Department of Labor & Economic 

Growth, Bureau of Workforce Transformation was constant and inspired throughout 

the study. Thank you Janet Howard, Deputy Director and Yvette Harris, State Coordinator, 

Welfare Reform Section.

Finally, thank you to the leadership staff of the following community partners who opened 

their doors to us and gave generously of their time. We are grateful to: 

 CVS Caremark: Lena Barkley, Manager, Workforce Initiatives and Darnell Jones, 

Pharmacist

 Johnson Controls: Jennifer Mattes, Director Global Public Affairs

 The Arts Place: Donnell Allen, Director, and Ted Jeffries, Assistant Director 

 Detroit Junior Cadet Program: Delisle C. Horton-Willis, Counseling Supervisor, 

Shelly White, Cadet Supervisor, and Sargent Perry, Director

 D-Farm: Jackie Hunt, Assistant Farm Manager

 The Greening of Detroit: Rebecca Salminen Witt, President and Linsey Brown, 

Youth Employment Coordinator

 Michigan Roundtable for Diversity and Inclusion: Thomas Costello, President 

and CEO

 Young Detroiter Magazine (operated at Communities in Schools of Detroit): 

Rosetta Lamar, President of Young Detroiter Magazine

 New Detroit: Bobbie Smith, Human Resources Associate

 J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.: Christine J. Kageff, Vice President, Philanthropy 

and Community Relations

 John S. and James L. Knight Foundation: Brenda Price, Program Director 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

44

INNOVATING UNDER PRESSURE: 

THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT 

2009 Summer Youth Employment Initiative 

Detroit 

INTRODUCTION

For Detroit, the ARRA SYEI represented a major influx of funds (over $11 million) and a 

significant challenge: how to design and roll out a program in less than four months that 

could provide quality, meaningful summer work and learning experiences for 7,000 young 

people. While Detroit had maintained a modest public and privately funded summer jobs 

program serving about 2,500 young people over the years, the ARRA funding represented 

the first major infusion of Federal funding for summer jobs in over a decade. For the city’s 

youth and workforce development leaders (i.e., the Detroit Workforce Development 

Department, Detroit Youth Employment Consortium, nonprofits, business, and 

philanthropy), summer 2009 called for a new way of doing business and ARRA provided the 

spark and grease to set up the infrastructure, partnerships, systems, and programs needed 

to deliver effective summer work experiences for the city’s youth. 

This case study is based on interviews and site visits conducted by staff from the Center for 

Youth and Communities at Brandeis University’s Heller School for Social Policy and 

Management, primarily during two weeks in July 2009, as well as supplemental materials 

collected during and after the interview process. The case is organized in two parts: Part 1 

provides an overview of the recessionary conditions in Detroit, both challenges and assets; 

Part 2 describes the Reinvestment and Recovery actions and innovations observed and 

explored by Brandeis researchers during two weeks in Detroit in summer 2009. 

The Detroit SYEI was characterized by its use of ARRA funding as an instrument of change 

aligned with the broader youth and community development mission of a group of game 

changers in the city. Its approach built on and strengthened existing collaborations, and 

included a strong city-intermediary structure with philanthropic leadership and investment.
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

45

PART I 

RECESSIONARY CONDITIONS: CHALLENGES AND ASSETS

Recessionary Challenges 

Detroit’s economic, political, social, and environmental conditions are grim. Time

magazine’s special report, “The Tragedy of Detroit” (October 2009), called it “a city on life 

support.” Journalists chronicled the slide from “Motown to Notown” of what had been the 

“Arsenal of Democracy” and a “city of homeowners.” Once the nation’s 4th largest city, 

Detroit is now only 11th largest: the population has slipped from two million to 800,000. 

Reporters called the once “muscular” neighborhoods the “urban equivalent of a boxer’s 

mouth – more gaps than teeth.”23 

There is the feel of a manmade ghost town across many of Detroit’s 138 square miles. 

Metropolitan Detroit had the nation’s highest foreclosure rate in 2007, up 68% from 2006. 

The number of vacant housing units has doubled to 200,000 during the decade.24 

The recent population loss, due largely to corporate failures and domestic automakers’ 

financial decline, is second only to New Orleans in Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath. By nearly 

all measures, Detroit is a city under siege. It has the highest poverty rate (33.8%) of any 

large American city; nearly half of its children are poor.25 Michigan has had the nation’s 

highest state unemployment rate since 2006. In February 2009, Detroit had the highest 

 

23 Time Magazine, October 5, 2009. 24 Ben Rooney, Rust and Sun Belt Cities Lead ’07 Foreclosure, CNN Money, Feb. 13, 2008. 25 US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2007 

Detroit is the Size of Three Other Major Cities Combined 

The city’s population is half what it was in 1950, but its boundaries contain an area the size of 

Manhattan, San Francisco and Boston combined. A third of Detroit is vacant.

Source: Detroit Free Press Courtesy of University of Detroit-Mercy 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

46

unemployment rate (13.6%) of any large metro area; by June, it had risen to 15.3%.26 In 

fall 2009, unemployment stood at 28.99% according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics; but 

at the White House Jobs Summit, Detroit’s Mayor Bing suggested that the truth was even 

more disturbing: closer to 50% and in some spots up to 80%. 

The “One D Scorecard,” released 

during the Detroit Regional 

Chamber’s27 2009 Annual Mackinac 

Policy Conference, offers another 

analysis of metropolitan Detroit 

conditions. Per capita income for a 

region once among the nation’s richest 

has fallen to 29th among 54 metro 

areas. Young people are leaving 

Detroit: just 12% of the population is 

aged 25-34 (43rd in the nation). Less 

than 70% of residents have high 

school diplomas, leaving one-third of 

the population virtually unemployable 

given 21st century skills and 

knowledge demands. Finally, Detroit 

ranks second among metro areas in 

black/white segregation, and the gap 

in income and education attainment 

between blacks and whites is wide.28

With these challenges – despite the efforts of devoted teachers and administrators – a 

quality education is hard to come by. The Detroit Public Schools are in receivership. In 

summer 2009, officials initiated a massive downsizing to address a $306 million deficit, and 

the plan called for closing 29 schools by fall 2009. 

Six out of ten Detroit students were behind in reading before entering high school.29 With 

only 37.5% of high school students graduating (compared to 75% nationally), Detroit has 

one of the lowest graduation rates in any large city.30 The National Youth Risk Behavior 

Survey31 results underscore the urgent need to transform the schools. For example: 

 11.4% of Detroit high school students did not attend school at least once in the 30 days 

prior to the survey due to safety concerns – more than double the national rate of 5.5%. 

 10.4% of high school students attempted suicide during the previous 12 months, 

compared to 6.8% nationwide. 

In addition, the pull out of all major grocery stores from Detroit has exacerbated food 

insecurity and hunger. Many neighborhoods have been designated “food deserts” – areas 

 

26 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Unemployment Rates in Metropolitan Areas, 2010. 27 The highly regarded Regional Chamber, chaired by Edsel B. Ford, was formed to foster collaboration among 

nonprofit organizations committed to Detroit’s recovery.

28 One D Scorecard, www.onedscorecard.org (2009). 29 Lee, J., Grigg, W., and Donahue, P. (2007). The Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2007 (NCES 2007–496). 

National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of 

Education, Washington, DC. 

30 Laird, J., DeBell, M., Kienzl, G., and Chapman, C. (2007). Dropout Rates in the United States: 2005 (NCES 

2007- 059). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

31 Center for Disease Control, National Youth Risk Survey (2007). 

Recessionary Challenges 

 High poverty 

 Collapse of the automobile industry 

 Highest foreclosure rate 

 Highest unemployment rate 

 Shrinking population 

 Brain drain 

 Racial disparities and divides 

 Schools in receivership with many closing 

 High violence 

 Food insecurity and hunger 

 Alarming increases in diet-related diseases 

 Government in turmoil - three mayors in one year 

 Indictments on City Council 

 Budget deficits 

 Vast geographic landscape 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

47

with no or distant food stores and limited access to fresh, nutritious food. Diet-related 

diseases such as obesity and diabetes are rising at alarming rates. In a 2007 report on the 

subject,32 the author found that “the vast majority of places to purchase groceries in Detroit 

are fringe locations, such as convenience stores, liquor stores and gas stations. Unless 

access to healthy food greatly improves, Detroit residents will continue to have greater 

rates of premature illness and death from diet-related diseases, after controlling for other 

key factors.”

Further, Detroit has one of the nation’s highest murder rates, and seven out of ten murders 

go unsolved: “there have been more killings so far this year in Detroit than in New York 

City, and New York City has nearly ten times as many people.”33

Finally, the local government has been in turmoil – three mayors in one year and fraud and 

indictments on the City Council. As one leader said, “It’s not just the Mayor who changed; 

it’s also the staff up and down the city’s systems. This has made it hard to work together 

on the summer stimulus and a lot of projects.” 

In short, the recessionary conditions in Detroit were, and are, daunting. Yet there are many 

innovative, talented, and skilled leaders who are passionate about “bringing Detroit back,” 

concentrating on schools, city government, and land use. Many of these leaders and 

managers told the Brandeis team, “These are the best of times and the worst of times” and 

“a crisis is a terrible thing to waste!” 

Recessionary Assets 

How does Detroit address these seemingly intractable social and economic problems - 

especially under the lens of a skeptical public and intensive government monitoring? It 

starts and ends with Detroit’s great asset – its people. 

The Brandeis team found a vibrant hidden infrastructure of vision, hope, pride – and a 

discipline of innovation – among a core group of game changers in Detroit. These leaders 

are on a mission - stimulated by the Skillman Foundation’s ten-year investment in Good 

Neighborhoods and Good Schools known as “Detroit Works for Kids” (see www.skillman.org) 

– to transform Detroit’s neighborhoods and “create conditions where all children are safe, 

healthy, well-educated and prepared for adulthood.” This is the story of how Detroiters 

used the ARRA as an instrument of change toward that broader mission. Ensuring and 

creating high quality summer jobs is part of the answer, but as many leaders said, “it’s also 

about big systems change and strategically re-engineering for a new economy and new 

opportunities in green jobs, healthcare and the creative arts.” 

Recessionary Assets: Hope, Pride, Discipline, and Resilience 

Hidden infrastructure including: 

 Mission-driven and results-oriented leadership, systems thinking, and entrepreneurial spirit 

 Established and expanding partnerships between philanthropy, city and state government, 

business, and nonprofits 

 Commitment to research-based best practice in programs and management 

 Institutional memory regarding large scale summer programs 

 Culture of learning and continuous quality improvement 

 

32 Mari Gallagher Research & Consulting Group (2007). Examining the Impact of Food Deserts on Public Health in 

Detroit. Chicago, IL. 

33 Hargreaves, S. Stopping Detroit’s Brain Drain, www.cnnmoney.com September 21, 2009 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

48

PART II 

REINVESTMENT AND RECOVERY ACTIONS AND INNOVATIONS: 

LEADERSHIP AND PARTNERSHIP 

It was clear that for the SYEI to succeed, Detroit would need to capitalize on its existing 

strengths, including: 

 The ability to draw upon an array of positive partnerships with individuals, businesses, 

and nonprofits. 

 Strong working relationships with the Detroit Workforce Development Department and 

the State of Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth. 

 Public and nonprofit professionals who not only have hope, pride, and discipline but also 

possess institutional memory of the large USDOL SYEPs of a decade ago. 

 A history of strategizing and planning effective youth development programs. 

 A cadre of passionate Detroiters who come to the table when asked. Indeed, there is a 

culture of “coming to the table.” (Yet, as numerous people pointed out, “The trick is to 

keep people at the table.”) 

The ARRA was a catalyst for a turnabout in Detroit’s approach to workforce development. 

Not only did it make Federal money available for youth employment; it also presented 

opportunities for new ways of doing workforce development in the city. 

Laying the groundwork: the Detroit Youth Employment Consortium 

In the spring and summer of 2009, the Detroit Youth Employment Consortium (YEC) 

members served as chief strategists and guides for the implementation of the ARRA SYEI. 

In support of SYEI, the Skillman Foundation granted up to $500,000 toward 

implementation. YEC arose in 2008, when the Skillman Foundation funded a summer jobs 

pilot, largely in response to consistent messages from youth that they wanted to work and 

were frustrated by the prospect of reaching adulthood without ever having a regular job. 

The pilot programs, under the auspices of the Youth Development Commission (YDC) 

working with local nonprofits, provided 300 jobs. The Foundation convened the partners to 

share experiences and best practices. The group formed a learning community, persuaded 

the City of Detroit and Michigan’s Department of Labor and Economic Growth to participate 

and commit resources, crafted the mission, generated recommendations, and established 

itself as the YEC. 

Detroit Youth Employment Consortium (YEC) 

 Initiated by The Skillman Foundation in 2008, YEC is a cross-sector partnership committed to expanding 

summer and year-round employment opportunities for Detroit youth ages 14-18. 

 Mission: “To develop a public-private partnership that expands sustainable high-quality youth employment 

opportunities in the city of Detroit that promote positive youth development 

(i.e., connect youth to employment exploration, encourage and support persistence and secondary 

education attainment).” 

 Members include City Connect Detroit, Brightmoor Alliance, Detroit Hispanic Development Corporation, 

Greening of Detroit, Latino Family Services, Michigan Roundtable for Diversity and Inclusion, Prevailing 

Community Development Corporation, Student Conservation Association, Youth Development 

Commission, Detroit Community Initiative, Mt. Vernon Missionary Baptist Church, National Community 

Development Institute, The Skillman Foundation, University of Michigan School of Social Work Good 

Neighborhood Technical Assistance Center, Youth Development Commission, JPMorgan Chase, W.K. 

Kellogg Foundation, Knight Foundation, Mott Foundation, The Kresge Foundation, Department of Labor 

and Economic Growth, State of Michigan, Workforce Development Department, City of Detroit, Blue Cross 

and Blue Shield of Michigan, Compuware, Johnson Controls Inc., Lear Corporation, Bank of America, DTE 

Energy.
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

49

This groundwork ultimately led to a new 

way of doing business: strong cityintermediary collaboration with 

philanthropic leadership and investment. 

The Detroit Workforce Development 

Department (DWDD) selected City 

Connect Detroit to serve as SYEI 

Coordinator. According to one city 

leader, “They have a reputation for 

getting things done.” City Connect 

proposed working in partnership with 

the YDC and the YEC, which provided 

strategic vision and resources. The 

state had to approve the Consortium 

approach and there was a readiness 

among state leadership to try this new 

way of doing business for summer youth 

employment. This collaborative 

structure was created in a matter of 

weeks, demonstrating an adaptive 

capacity34 rarely seen among 

government, philanthropy, and 

nonprofits. A philosophy that 

“partnerships are a must” drives the 

complex but functional management 

structure. 

As Exhibit 1 illustrates, City Connect 

submitted a proposal in response to an 

April 2009 DWDD RFP for a program 

administrator to manage all aspects of a summer work program. (After nearly 20 years of 

contracting with the private, for-profit Career Works to carry out employment-related 

programs, DWDD briefly ran the youth employment program before issuing the RFP.) City 

Connect, an intermediary organization dedicated to partnership and collaboration, emerged 

as the most appropriate lead agency/program administrator. Its senior staff are steeped in 

partnership development and their work culture reflects that. For example, “relationship 

management” within and across organizations is a formal function and competency in job 

descriptions and performance reviews. Meantime, the number of youth to be served had 

risen to 7,000 as more funds had become available but the turnaround time for the RFP was 

only 11 days! City Connect marshaled the forces of numerous organizations and groups, 

and responded with a winning proposal. 

Detroit’s SYEI management and leadership structure was distinctive (compared to that of 

many other cities) in that it was overseen and managed by a nonprofit intermediary 

organization that brokered strategic partnerships to accomplish the goals. Further, they did 

so with a regional economic focus in three areas: green jobs, healthcare, and creative arts. 

 

34 Adaptive capacity is an organization’s ability to ask, listen, reflect, and adapt in a changing environment. C. W. 

Letts, W. P. Ryan, and A. Grossman (1999). High Performance Nonprofit Organizations (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 

New York). 

Detroit Youth Development Commission (YDC) 

The Skillman Foundation formed Detroit’s Youth 

Development Commission (YDC) in 1995 to address 

recreational activities for youth during out-of-school 

hours. Over time, its role expanded to include youth 

development initiatives such as youth employment and 

summer work. Skillman funded YDC’s Work 

Opportunities for Youth program for nine years, during 

which it served 1,000 to 2,000 youth each summer, 

offering classroom-based employability skills training 

through numerous community-based organizations. 

The YDC did not operate summer jobs programs for 

three years; then, in 2008, the Skillman Foundation 

granted $300,000 to the YDC as fiduciary to pilot 

youth employment programs in six neighborhoods. 

YDC subcontracted with local organizations to provide 

public and private sector jobs at about 60 sites for 

about 300 youth. 

For the 2009 SYEI, the YDC became the operational 

subcontractor/partner (City Connect Detroit was the 

lead intermediary/coordinator). YDC was responsible 

for the day-to-day operation of youth certification, 

assessment, and orientation; identifying, contracting 

with, monitoring, and providing technical assistance to 

many worksites; providing youth development training 

and education; collecting timesheets, processing 

payroll, and distributing paychecks; managing 

program data; providing support and follow-up; and 

conducting some aspects of program evaluation and 

continuous quality improvement. 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

50

Even with this high level of collaboration, Detroit’s operational capacity was “pushed and 

challenged,” as one stakeholder noted. However, City Connect’s expressed philosophy was, 

“Keep your eyes on the prize, and know that mistakes are learning opportunities.” This 

sense of mission, drive, and commitment to excellence and continuous improvement were 

expressed during interviews with Detroit people at all levels. 

Exhibit 1 

Creating a New Way of Doing Business: 

Strong City-Intermediary Collaboration with Philanthropic Leadership and Investment 

 “City Connect Detroit, in partnership with the Detroit Youth Employment Consortium, the 

Skillman Foundation and Youth Development Commission, presented a successful proposal to 

the Detroit Workforce Development Department to become Coordinator of the Summer Youth 

Employment Program (SYEP).”-Board Report 10/20/09, City Connect Detroit 

Roles and Responsibilities of Partners 

Organization Role/Responsibility

Detroit Youth Employment Consortium (Cocreated and supported by The Skillman 

Foundation; endorsed by city and state workforce 

leaders)

Convene cross-sector consortium focused on 

strategic development of year-round youth 

employment opportunities.

Detroit Workforce Development Department

Overall program monitoring to ensure city, state, 

and Federal compliance, accountability, and 

transparency.

City Connect Detroit

Provide SYEP leadership/direction. 

Monitor program performance/quality. 

Develop private sector worksites (#50+). 

Manage innovative partnerships (#13+).

Youth Development Commission

Implement WIA/SYEP 10 Key Elements* for Youth 

Programs and provide quality training and 

guidance for youth development approach.

University of Michigan – School of Social 

Work, Good Neighborhoods Technical Assistance 

Center

Conduct program evaluation with youth and 

employers 

*As established by the Department of Labor (DOL) Training and Employment Guidance letter (TEGL) 14-

08. Key elements include incorporating age appropriate activities and establishing work readiness goals, 

conducting meaningful work experiences, establishing positive worksites, integrating work and 

classroom-based learning activities, connecting to registered apprenticeships, linking academic and 

occupational learning, supporting older/out-of-school youth during non-summer months, focusing on 

youth most in need, conducting twelve-month follow-up, and incorporating green work experiences. 

ETA provided flexibility through ARRA on, for example, follow-up services, assessment, and academic 

learning linked to summer employment. 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

51

City Connect Detroit

“They have a reputation for getting things done.” 

Mission: To help metropolitan Detroit nonprofits and governments obtain increased national funding 

and to facilitate collaborations among nonprofits, governments, businesses, grantmakers, and others. 

Embedded amidst an array of partnerships, City Connect was the summer 2009 SYEI coordinator and 

responsible for program management. City Connect manager-leaders demonstrated a missionfocused, results-oriented approach and a commitment to research-based best practices and 

continuous improvement as they provided leadership direction, monitored program performance, 

developed private-sector worksites, and managed innovative partnerships. 

History: In 1998, the Skillman Foundation and other public and nonprofit leaders formed a planning 

group to address chronic under-funding of Detroit area human service programs by the Federal 

government. Among the major reasons for this problem are the following: 

 A need for greater understanding and trust among local nonprofit organizations, foundations, 

and city departments. 

 A comparative lack of cross-sector collaborations. 

 A need for available, timely information about Federal and national foundation funding 

opportunities. 

 A perception that southeast Michigan’s nonprofit organizations lack organizational capacity to 

successfully compete for funding at the national level. 

(See www.cityconnectdetroit.org) 

City Connect Detroit was created in 2001 to address those challenges. Its purpose is to help groups 

advance important community issues by using data, connecting with others, and advancing collective 

strategic approaches. A board was formed to oversee the organization; a highly experienced CEO and 

small staff were hired. City Connect received a start-up grant with a five-year goal of raising $25 

million. It brought in more than twice that much in half the time expected. City Connect has helped 

form more than thirty collaborative partnerships that focus on many issues, including youth 

development and youth employment. 

Using established relationships and a skilled staff, City Connect led Detroit’s capacity to develop the 

collaborative relationships to move the Detroit SYEP forward rapidly. 

Technical challenges, however, were around every corner. Like others in 2009, Detroit 

confronted dilemmas with eligibility and certification requirements, financial management 

systems/ payroll, cash flow, and job matching. Examples of these challenges, and Detroit’s 

responses, follow. 

“Ramping up to serve 7,000 kids is not without incident.” 

Certification and Eligibility: From Confusion to Innovation 

Outreach to young people started in winter 2009. The Detroit Workforce Development 

Department (DWDD) organized “Super Saturdays” and used its One Stop Centers, schools, 

churches, and other locations to recruit and distribute pre-applications. The City Council 

issued announcements. Pre-applications were to be turned in at One Stop Centers. 

“Everyone was knocking on the door, hoping for a chance to work.” 

Pre-applications were intended as a statement of interest in participating in the SYEI. 

DWDD’s receipt of a pre-application was to trigger a letter telling the applicant to attend a 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

52

certification appointment and be tested using TABE35 reading/math assessments. More 

than 25,000 youth completed pre-applications; however, some youth and families 

misinterpreted the pre-application as the whole application process. As a result, the SYEI 

staff needed to reach out to many applicants and their families to explain the full process. 

 

In June 2009, City Connect and the YDC began handling certification, with DWDD in an 

oversight role. This transition, while challenging, was largely successful. City Connect 

organized a rapid response team to accelerate the certification process, instituting an “all 

hands on deck” approach (and hiring additional hands). By the end of the SYEI, City 

Connect reported 7,047 certified placements. 

Detroit’s Payroll Management Response: 

“Mistakes Represent Learning Opportunities” 

A problem arose during Detroit’s first payroll: 534 

out of 2,614 youth who were expecting paychecks 

were not paid on time. Some checks were not 

issued because timesheets were submitted after 

deadline. Others were not issued because some 

agencies were working with kids who had “always 

been eligible before,” and who they “knew” would 

be eligible again in 2009; these agencies put young people to work without completing the 

certification process and submitted timesheets for them. Thus, timesheets were submitted 

for uncertified youth; but due to the checks and balances, no paychecks were issued. 

A team of manager-leaders from City Connect and the YDC began troubleshooting 

immediately, working through the weekend to tackle the problem. They received 331 

complaints on payday, and had resolved 221 of them by the end of that day. They analyzed 

how and why problems occurred and came up with solutions. They implemented a rapid 

certification process, provided additional training to site monitors and field reps regarding 

certification and payroll procedures, and improved information flow. They informed 

agencies that if agency-created problems occurred on the second round of paychecks, the 

agencies would be responsible for paying the youth from their own funds. They created an 

ad hoc payroll team to conduct quality assurance to reduce the chances that problems 

would recur. It worked! By the end of the program, they had issued more than 23,000 

checks totaling $7,569,748. 

Cash Flow Innovation 

When the authorization for the summer program came in May, City Connect and other 

organizations had to move forward based upon verbal commitments – without contracts 

signed or money flowing. Meanwhile, staff, supervisors, and administrators, had to be 

hired, trained, and paid. 

“Money helps, but people solve problems...but money helps!” 

The cash flow dilemma was largely addressed through the availability of a flexible fund from 

the Skillman Foundation and a line of credit with a financial institution. The Skillman 

Foundation established what became known as “a vault” with several hundred thousand 

dollars to address cash flow dilemmas and support potentially ineligible youth. Managerleaders also called this the “safety/penalty box fund.” Interviewees remarked time and time 

35 The Test for Adult Basic Education (TABE) is a series of assessments used by a range of employers and 

educators to help identify test takers’ levels of competency, educational goals, learning styles, etc. 

Top Technical Challenges 

 Eligibility/certification 

 Financial management 

systems/payroll 

 Cash flow 

 Job matching 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

53

again that “we could not have done this without Skillman.” As one said, “Their support 

allowed us to be nimble and take some necessary risks.” This proved to be an essential 

factor of success, given the complexity and timing of the contracts and certification process 

and the need to be audit-proof. With multiple funding streams, multiple entities were 

monitoring the SYEI (Federal, state, city, et al.), paperwork was time-consuming. From a 

management and leadership perspective the problems were ultimately worked out, but the 

funding lag left some damaged feelings in neighborhood programs that will need to be 

repaired. The leadership team will develop a financial management model to prevent this in 

future programs. 

Job Matching/Worksite Development

Developing more than 7,000 meaningful jobs that are connected to youths’ interests, 

respond to regional industries, and are within acceptable travel distances posed a challenge. 

During the certification process, youth 

wrote job preferences on their 

applications. Early in the summer, 

YDC did its best to match youth with 

jobs that had some connection to their 

stated preferences. As the summer 

progressed and the number of youth 

enrolled grew, interest-driven job 

matching became more challenging. 

Because Detroit’s public transportation 

is underdeveloped, geography played a 

governing role in deciding where to 

place youth. 

YDC attempted to place young people in jobs 

within their home zip codes; when this was not 

possible, the goal was at least to provide a job 

on each youth’s side of the city/downtown. 

There were also instances in which employers 

wanted only older youth or youth with specific 

skills; in other cases, agencies wanted “only 

their own kids.” To the extent possible, YDC 

attempted to fulfill these requests. 

Though the majority of youth were younger, inschool youth, more than 1,300 were older youth 

who needed jobs. Some were desperate and 

“just want any job.” Others had more specific 

interests. 

In the end, City Connect Detroit and YDC 

developed 242 worksites, 57 of them in the 

private sector (which exceeded their internal goal of 50). See Figure 1 for a breakdown of 

types of worksites. 

Figure 1. Job Matching Percentages

Private 

Business

23%

Governm't/ 

Public

22%

Nonprofits

55%

MIS Demographics (As of 1/19/10) 

Older Youth 1,303 

Younger Youth 4,670 

Out-of-School 1,113 

In-School 4,840 

5% Ineligible 119 

Male 2,810 

Female 3,163 

White American 74 

African American 5,893 

American Indian/Alaskan 24 

Asian 4 

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 4 

Hispanic/Latino 89 

Disabled 129 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

54

Youth Work Readiness Orientation and Training 

All youth enrolled in Detroit’s SYEI participated in what the SYEI dubbed the “COOL” 

program – a series of four-hour training, learning enrichment, and occasionally tutorial 

sessions led by YDC teachers that covered work readiness topics such as: 

 Getting and keeping a job 

 Getting ready for the world of work 

 Life skills 

 Understanding finances 

 Green careers 

 Leadership skills 

This training, held at six sites, typically served 25 youth per session. Youth who enrolled at 

the beginning of the summer attended weekly COOL Fridays sessions, and worked Mondays 

through Thursdays. As the summer advanced, this schedule became unmanageable given 

the large number of youth involved. YDC adjusted by front-loading the program: newly 

enrolled youth attended the entire set of COOL sessions in their first week (five days), then 

moved into their jobs five days per week. 

Meaningful Work Experience 

Despite the SYEI’s rapid implementation, Detroit managed to offer many young people an 

array of meaningful experiences (see Appendix 1). The Brandeis team asked worksite and 

program supervisors to define meaningful work experience. A sampling of their responses 

follows: 

 “Not just a paycheck” 

 “Broadens and deepens thinking 

about self and others” 

 “Creates a growing confidence and 

belief and pride in self” 

 “Motivates you to succeed in 

schooling, gives a sense of possibility” 

 “Infuses all aspects of an industry 

into the experience” 

 “Combines work and learning with 

projects and active academics” 

 “Exposes kids to new career options 

and the skills they need to make a 

living” 

 “Inspires kids to do something with 

their lives” 

Both youth development and integrated work 

and learning strategies had traction in Detroit and were observed in programs and 

placements that included junior police cadets, environmental stewardship, urban gardening, 

journalism, participatory action research, pharmacology and the Arts. Based on research 

conducted on summer and year-round youth programs, the Brandeis team created a short 

list of best practice criteria (see Exhibit 2). 

At the worksites visited – which employed approximately one-third of the total youth served 

in summer 2009 – most of the sites met these criteria. For example, worksite supervisors 

were top-rate. Supervisors saw youth’s value and potential, recognized the role of work in 

youth development and transition to adulthood, and endeavored to make young people’s 

summer experiences meaningful. 

Exhibit 2 

Youth Programs 

Best Practice Criteria 

 Meaningful work 

 Relationship with competent, caring 

adults (high quality staff and worksite 

supervisors) 

 Youth development principles in place 

for positive developmental settings 

 Opportunity to combine work and 

learning and acquire marketable skills 

 Age and stage appropriate placements 

and tasks 

 Evidence of partnerships / coordination 

for “system of supports and 

opportunities” 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

55

Highlights from Summer Evaluation Findings 

Results of employer and youth employee exit surveys36 support the Brandeis researchers’ 

perception that Detroit youth and employers had a positive experience. Among employers, 

110 responded to the survey (a 64.7% completion rate); 1,416 youth responded (a 20% 

completion rate). 

Employers who responded to the survey were very positive about the program: 

 99% would participate in the program again; 98% would encourage other organizations 

to participate. 

 70% said the Detroit SYEI can be improved next year by “starting the program earlier in 

the summer” while 53% said by “making a year-round employment program.” 

Employers also said that their worksites helped prepare youth for future employment by 

building and providing experience with employment skills and by offering exposure to 

possible career choices. They also said that their worksites help prepare youth academically 

by reinforcing the importance of an education, and by connecting youth to higher education 

and educational resources. 

“Look at the kids – this is where the diamonds are.” 

Among youth respondents: 

 84% felt safe and respected by adults. 

 74% said that there was an adult they felt comfortable talking to; staff challenged 

them to do their best; and they had a chance to help people in the community. 

 72% said that they felt like their opinion mattered. 

 73% reported that the program changed their ideas about the future, most 

frequently reporting that they now have more confidence about whatever they do 

(37%) and think they can get a better job (34%). 

 70% learned to work with others as a team. 

 47% learned how to act at work. 

 46% said that the program helped them decide what kind of job they liked. 

 35% said it helped them understand the qualifications needed for their dream job 

and prepare for a job interview. 

 40% said it raised their expectations of themselves. 

 30% said it helped them decide to stay in school. 

 88% said that they made new friends. 

 76% would recommend the program to others. 

 35% reported that they gave the money they earned to their family. 

When asked what job they wanted in ten years, the youth37 listed the following: 

Nurse: Pediatric nurse, psychiatric nurse, neonatal nurse, and certified nurse midwife

Doctor: Pediatrician, OB-GYN, eye doctor, urologist, cardiologist, army doctor, surgeon, 

anesthesiologist, neurosurgeon, pediatric surgeon, neonatal surgeon, medical examiner, 

holistic doctor, sports medicine physician, and radiologist

 

36Shanks, T. and McGee, K. (2010). Detroit Summer Youth Employment Program: Results of Employer and Youth 

Employee Exit Surveys. University of Michigan – School of Social Work, Good Neighborhoods Technical Assistance 

Center. 

371,141 out of 1,416 respondents completed this item for a response rate of 80.6%. 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

56

Lawyer: Business law, corporate attorney, defense attorney, district attorney, prosecution 

attorney, and criminal justice lawyer for juvenile delinquencies

Entrepreneur or shop owner: Catering, chef owning my own restaurant, massage, spa, 

production company, salon, barbershop, daycare, and adult care

Engineer: Electrical, computer, mechanical, automotive, civil, and chemical

Sports: Basketball (NBA, WNBA), baseball (MLB), boxing, football, UFC and mixed martial 

arts, and bowling

Corporate: Business manager, business man/woman, business administration, CEO, 

Financial advisor, business consulting, marketing, banking, and marketing

Arts: Design art, cartoonist, graphic novelists, computer animation, choreographer, dancer, 

dancing with Alvin Alley, teaching dance, music producer, Mariachi with a Master’s degree, 

rapper, R&B and rap artist, singer, and music/sound engineer

Law enforcement: SWAT team, homicide detective, and K-9 officer

Teacher: Pre-school teacher, high school teacher, music teacher, English teacher, and 

special education teacher 

The findings suggest that summer work and learning opportunities can play an important 

role in youth development and future work and career aspirations. 

The program worksites defined in Appendix 1 represent placements for about one third of 

youth workers. All seven represent promising and best practice worthy of future investment 

and replication. Appendix 2 illustrates the strategic alignment between Detroit’s 

recessionary conditions and the recovery and reinvestment actions taken by the leadership 

team.

Final Words 

“Hope is the difference between success and failure in Detroit.” 

During summer 2009, Detroit innovated under pressure and combated obstacles with social 

and intellectual capital, material assets, and the political will, skills, and strategy to seize 

this opportunity to make Detroit work for kids. The leaders who were interviewed said, “We 

are not done” and “we need year-round youth work and learning opportunities and we are 

planning for that now.” Many noted with hope, “We have a strong Mayor now.” Mayor Bing 

– a businessman and former Detroit Pistons star - took over in May 2009 before winning a 

full term election in November 2009. According to Time (October 2009, “The Chief 

Executive”), the new Mayor will “impose his own financial discipline and entrepreneurial 

sense on city government.” Newly invigorated political leadership coupled with an 

aggressive school reform movement and determined leaders in philanthropy, nonprofits, 

business, and state government may keep this fast-moving train on track. 

“Detroit is an example of resiliency tied to hope.” 

One Foundation leader said, “In spite of the many challenges – City Council problems, 

mayoral turnover, people hesitant to invest in Detroit, the unraveling of the corporate 

sector, the feeling of being under siege – we pulled this off!”
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

57

DETROIT 

APPENDIX 1 

Organization Program Strategy Sample Worksite 

Experiences Highlights 

Management and Leadership 

Detroit Youth 

Employment 

Consortium/ 

Convene cross-sector 

consortium focused on 

strategic development of 

year-round youth 

employment opportunities. 

Detroit 

Workforce 

Development 

Department/ 

Overall program monitoring 

to ensure city, state, and 

Federal compliance, 

accountability, and 

transparency. 

City Connect 

Detroit/ 

Provide SYEP leadership/ 

direction. 

Monitor program 

performance/quality. 

Develop private sector 

worksites (#50+). 

Manage innovative 

partnerships (#13+). 

Youth 

Development 

Coalition/ 

Implement WIA/SYEP 10 

Key Elements for Youth 

Programs and provide 

quality training and 

guidance for youth 

development approach. 

University of 

Michigan – 

School of Social 

Work, Good 

Neighborhoods 

Technical 

Assistance 

Center 

Creating a new way of 

doing business: Strong 

city-intermediary 

collaboration with 

philanthropic leadership 

and investment 

“City Connect Detroit, in 

partnership with the 

Detroit Youth 

Employment 

Consortium, the 

Skillman Foundation and 

Youth Development 

Commission, presented 

a successful proposal to 

the Detroit Workforce 

Development 

Department to become 

Coordinator of the 

Summer Youth 

Employment Program 

(SYEP).” – Board Report 

10/20/09, City Connect 

Detroit

Conduct program 

evaluation with youth and 

employers. 

The innovative 

collaboration approach (a 

brand new way of doing 

business) was created in a 

matter of months and grew 

out of the mission of the 

newly formed Youth 

Employment Consortium: 

“To develop a publicprivate partnership that 

expands sustainable, high 

quality youth employment 

opportunities in the city of 

Detroit that promote 

positive youth 

development.” 

Education Partners and Worksites 

CVS Caremark 

Workforce 

Initiative/ 

CVS 

Corporation 

CVS Caremark provided 

young people with 

summer pharmacy 

internships that exposed 

them to careers in 

pharmacy and other 

healthcare professions. 

90 youth were placed in 

39 stores in the Detroit 

metro area. Prior to 

their internships, young 

people received a week 

of training at a CVS 

Regional Learning 

CVS Pharmacy Assistants at 

39 “Pharmacies of 

Promise.” 

This innovative publicprivate collaboration 

combined: 

 Meaningful work. 

 Relationships with 

competent, caring 

adults. 

 Opportunities to 

combine work and 

learning and acquire 

marketable skills. 

 Significant use of a 

broad array of SCANS 

skills and competencies. 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

58

Organization Program Strategy Sample Worksite 

Experiences Highlights 

Center. Following the 

summer, interns 

attended a week-long 

educational session at 

the Wayne State 

University College of 

Pharmacy & Health 

Sciences. 

 Significant exposure to 

the rigors of a privatesector workplace. 

One supervisory 

pharmacist said, “Look 

carefully. This is where the 

diamonds are – the young 

people working here.”

Youth Engaged 

In Community 

Research/ 

University 

of Michigan 

Using community asset 

surveys and focus 

groups, 60 young people 

collected data in their 

neighborhoods to 

explore how safe, 

healthy, educated, and 

prepared for adulthood 

local youth were. Prior 

to data gathering, youth 

participated in role plays 

to help them get people 

to respond to their 

surveys. Youth 

generated the questions 

they would ask during 

focus groups. They 

compiled what they 

heard/learned during 

focus groups, and 

conducted basic asset 

mapping. As a 

culminating event, youth 

gave a presentation to 

the Michigan Governor’s 

Council. 

University of Michigan 

participatory action 

research (PAR) in six 

Detroit neighborhoods. 

This university-sponsored 

initiative engaged young 

people in participatory 

community research that 

incorporated: 

 Youth development and 

youth research 

principles. 

 A superb vehicle for 

youth voices to be 

heard. 

 Opportunities for youth 

to give back to their 

communities -- “You live 

in your neighborhood; 

you keep hearing others 

talk about your 

neighborhood; this is 

your chance to get 

reliable data and help 

shape your 

neighborhood.”

Detroit Junior 

Police Cadet 

Program/ 

Detroit Police 

Department 

Detroit’s Junior Cadet 

Program provided 

1500+ youth with 

opportunities to give 

back to their 

communities, and 

helped improve 

relationships among 

youth and police 

officers. 

The Senior Citizen Escort 

Program 

After training in working 

with elders, Cadets 

provided companionship, 

played games, and 

exercised with seniors; 

helped with eating and 

letter writing; helped with 

travel to appointments or 

shopping; ran errands for 

seniors; and patrolled 

senior-oriented buildings 

and grounds. 

The School/Community 

Patrols 

Cadets patrolled parks to 

enhance safety; served as 

escorts and companions in 

parks and at bus stops; 

This 34-year-old program 

combined: 

 Meaningful work and 

community service. 

 Relationships with 

competent, caring 

adults. 

 Youth development 

principles. 

 Youth participation in 

creating safe places for 

themselves and others. 

A broad array of subjects in 

which youth were trained: 

maturity at work, dress 

habits, goal setting, life 

skills, social skills, time 

management, HIV/ AIDS 

education, drug/tobacco 

education, human 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

59

Organization Program Strategy Sample Worksite 

Experiences Highlights 

provided additional 

supervision for community 

groups and nursery schools 

using park facilities; and 

assisted stranded 

motorists. In school 

buildings, Cadets patrolled 

hallways, grounds, and 

perimeters to assure 

safety; helped with summer 

program activities; and 

performed clerical work. 

relations, conflict 

resolution, leadership 

skills, budgeting and bank 

accounts, and first aid/CPR.

Communities in 

Schools 

Young Detroiter 

Magazine is a youth-run 

monthly publication with 

a mission to “broaden 

the education of metro 

area teens through 

journalism and special 

programs that create 

unique opportunities 

through media.” 

Organized to mimic a 

real publishing business, 

over 20 youth were 

grouped into working 

departments: 

management, public 

relations, marketing, 

journalism, and internet. 

The resulting magazine 

is of professional 

quality: photographs 

and graphics mix with 

articles designed to 

appeal to youth and at 

times to convey 

important messages. 

Community in Schools 

Home to Young Detroiter 

Magazine. 

This excellent example of 

high quality project-based 

learning combined: 

 Youth involvement in 

many aspects of the 

publishing business. 

 Meaningful work. 

 Relationships with 

competent, caring 

adults. 

 Opportunity to combine 

work and learning and 

acquire marketable 

skills for “green jobs.” 

 Youth development 

principles. 

 Significant use of 

SCANS skills and 

competencies, and 

other important 

academic, 

employability, and life 

skills.

Conservation 

Leadership 

Corps/ 

Johnson 

Controls, the 

Student 

Conservation 

Association and 

The Greening 

of Detroit 

110 youth were engaged 

in a variety of hands-on 

environmental 

stewardship/ 

conservation 

experiences. They also 

received assistance with 

job readiness and 

interview skill 

development; resume 

writing, and personal 

financial management. 

Johnson Controls, the 

Student Conservation 

Association and The 

Greening of Detroit 

Student supervised “green” 

activities such as tree 

planting, landscaping, 

native planting, new trail 

development and 

maintenance, native timber 

bench construction, 

removing invasive species, 

repairing damaged and 

eroded areas, and 

constructing a greenhouse 

for an elementary school 

outdoor classroom. 

This innovative, publicprivate, “green jobs” 

program combined: 

 Meaningful work. 

 Relationships with 

competent, caring 

adults. 

 Opportunities to 

combine work and 

learning and acquire 

marketable skills for 

“green jobs.” 

 Evidence of 

partnerships/coordinatio

n for “systems of 

supports and 

opportunities.” 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

60

Organization Program Strategy Sample Worksite 

Experiences Highlights 

 Youth development 

principles. 

 Opportunities for youth 

to give back to their 

communities. 

DFarm/ 

Detroit Black 

Food Security 

Network 

DFarm is a 2-acre model 

urban farm responding 

to the lack of 

supermarkets in Detroit. 

It grows green produce 

for sale at farmers’ 

markets, and addresses 

in its small way the lack 

of access to fresh 

produce in many 

communities. 

DFarm/ Detroit Black Food 

Security Network 

Ten youth cultivated and 

raised fresh produce, 

pulled/cut/ 

weighed/trimmed produce 

for sale, sold produce at 

market, and learned where 

fresh produce comes from, 

conditions to grow it, and 

what it takes to create it. 

This project addresses the 

“food desert” epidemic in 

Detroit.

For the city youth involved, 

this “green jobs” program 

proved to be an 

extraordinarily enlightening 

experience that combined: 

 Exposure to and 

participation in 

sustainable urban 

farming and healthy 

nutrition. 

 Meaningful work. 

 Relationships with 

competent, caring 

adults. 

 Opportunities to 

combine work and 

learning and acquire 

marketable skills. 

 Opportunities for youth 

to give back to their 

communities. 

The Arts Place 100 young people 

developed their talents 

by interacting with and 

learning from successful 

artists across a number 

of disciplines. 

Community Center 

Each youth participated in 

120 hours of skill-building 

and employability training 

in one or two of the 

following: vocal music, 

instrumental music, dance, 

drama, set design, costume 

design, photography, 

theater management, 

and/or visual arts. Youth 

developed portfolios, 

demonstrated skills through 

a production, performance 

or gallery showcase, and 

applied realistic strategies 

to locate employment 

opportunities and develop 

career paths.

The entire work experience 

and training culminates in 

a public performance that 

utilizes the new skills of all 

arts teams. 

This exciting culture and 

arts program represents a 

powerful example of 

experiential learning 

through work with 

competent, caring 

practicing artists and 

opportunities to develop 

creatively with peers and 

enhance self-expression. 
DETROIT 

APPENDIX 2 

Summary of Key Challenges and Innovations, Summer 2009, Detroit 

Challenge – Recessionary Conditions Recovery and Reinvestment Actions and 

Innovation Examples 

Need for new way of doing business/effective 

and efficient infrastructure 

Limited youth employment opportunities 

Anticipated need for increased youth employment 

as part of broader youth and community 

development mission (i.e., neighborhoods where 

kids are safe, healthy, well-educated, and 

prepared for adulthood). Created Youth 

Employment Consortium. 

Built on existing and new partnerships and created 

collaborative approach committed to results, best 

practice, and continuous quality improvement. 

Addressed common technical challenges with rapid 

response teams, creative “COOL” days program, 

and focus on enduring partnerships. 

Address shifting demographics and 

extreme recessionary conditions: 

e.g.: Food insecurity + hunger + diet 

related diseases and vacant land 

e.g.: Rising need for healthcare 

professionals 

e.g.: Increasing crime/violence

Build on youth interest and tax credit 

for creative industry

Reconnect and empower youth with 

positive, useful education experience 

Align summer job focus with youth development 

principles and new regional economies: green 

jobs, healthcare, creative arts. 

The “Greening of Detroit,” Conservation 

Leadership Corps; D-Farm Urban Gardens and 

Detroit Black Food Security Network. 

CVS Caremark Work Force Initiative. 

Detroit Junior Police Cadet Program. 

The Arts Place, training for young artists and 

performers. 

Youth Engaged in Community Research (University 

of Michigan); Young Detroiter Magazine. 

Employ 7,000 youth in meaningful work 

experience and do so “quickly and wisely” 

with “transparency and accountability.” “WE DID IT!” 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

61
CASE STUDY 

INNOVATING UNDER PRESSURE: 

THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT

2009 Summer Youth Employment Initiative 

Indianapolis and Marion County 

Prepared by: 

The Center for Youth and Communities 

Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

Brandeis University 

Waltham, Massachusetts 

June 2010

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

62
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Indianapolis and Marion County case study was made possible by additional funding 

from The Lilly Endowment. We truly appreciate their support; without it, this report would 

not have been possible. Thank you! 

A special acknowledgement goes to our Lead Community Partners in Indianapolis and 

Marion County. Thank you to the Indianapolis Private Industry Council: Brooke 

Huntington, President and CEO, Gartha Ingram, VP Strategic Development, Chelsea 

Meldrum, YouthWorks Indy Program Coordinator, Bill Miller, Director Strategic Development, 

Laurie Turner, Education Coordinator, Erika Cheney, Contract Coordinator, and Matt Rager, 

Consultant. Thanks also to the Indianapolis Public Schools: Gerald McLeish, Director of 

High School Programs; and the City of Indianapolis: Mayor Greg A. Ballard, Deputy Mayor 

Nick Weber, and M. Karega Rausch, Charter Schools Director.

Finally, thank you to the leadership staff of the programs and worksites in Indianapolis and 

Marion County who opened their doors to us and gave generously of their time: 

 Fall Creek Academy: Anita Silverman, Principal

 River Valley Resources: Kerry Sell 

 JobWorks/WorkOne Indianapolis East: Rich Sewell, Vice President, Mike 

Johnson, Team Leader, Summer Education and Employment Program 

 Indianapolis Metropolitan High School: Carlotta Kozlowicz-Cooprider, Principal 

and School Director, Scott Bess, Chief Operating Officer, Goodwill Education 

Initiatives 

 Metropolitan Indianapolis-Central Indiana Area Health Education Center:

Kimberly McElroy-Jones, Executive Director 

 Ivy Tech Community College, Workforce Economic Development Office: Sally 

Eisbrenner, Manager 

 GEO Foundation: Lisa Lorentz, Director of Special Events and Donor Relations 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

63
INNOVATING UNDER PRESSURE: 

THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT 

2009 Summer Youth Employment Initiative 

Indianapolis and Marion County 

INTRODUCTION

For Indianapolis and Marion County, the summer youth employment initiative (SYEI) 

represented a major influx of funds (over $3.2 million) and a challenge: how to design and 

roll out a program that could provide quality, meaningful work and learning experiences for 

several hundred youth in less than four months. While Indianapolis and Marion County had 

maintained a modest, privately funded summer jobs program over the years, the 2009 

ARRA funding was the first major infusion of Federal support available for summer youth 

employment in over a decade. For local youth and workforce development leaders – private 

nonprofits, businesses, and philanthropy – the 2009 SYEI called for a new way of doing 

business to set up the partnerships, systems, and programs needed to provide effective 

summer work experiences for the 645 youth served. 

The Indianapolis and Marion County SYEI was characterized by strong leadership through 

the Indianapolis Private Industry Council and the Mayor’s office; a deep partnership base 

with public, nonprofit, and for-profit partners; highly dedicated, hardworking staff; a serious 

commitment to linking work and learning through a network of contractors, including 

several schools; and intentional efforts to design programs that met employer and local 

labor market needs. Because of the SYEI, young people were engaged; received needed 

earnings, academic credits, credentials, job skills, and connections to the job market; and 

took an important step toward adulthood. Moreover, the local network of partners with a 

commitment to workforce development, youth, and education expanded. 

During the last weeks of the program, IPIC and its partners welcomed the researchers from 

the Center for Youth and Communities at Brandeis University’s Heller School for Social 

Policy and Management to SYEI work and education sites to speak with youth, teachers, 

school principals, administrators, employers, and city planners. This case study is based on 

those interviews and supplemental materials reviewed before, during, and after the visits. 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

64
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

65

PART I 

RECESSIONARY CONDITIONS: CHALLENGES AND ASSETS 

Marion County Workforce Investment Act programs are administered by the Indianapolis 

Private Industry Council (IPIC)38 and overseen by the Marion County Workforce Investment 

Board. Although it had been more than 15 years since the city had run a similar summer 

youth employment program (SYEP), IPIC and the Mayor’s office, the 2009 SYEI’s central 

planners, embraced the challenge. 

The city desperately needed this influx of funds to employ and educate its young people. Of 

youth aged 16 to 19 in Indiana, 67% were unemployed or not in the labor force.39 In the 

down economy of 2009, it was particularly difficult for youth to find employment. Few had 

work experience or marketable skills, and they found themselves competing with adults for 

a decreasing number of entry-level and/or temporary jobs. The planners made the sixweek SYEI – YouthWorks Indy – a top priority. The program quickly enrolled 645 lowincome youth, age 16 to 24, in Indianapolis and Marion County. 

While the SYEI in the Balance of State40 workforce investment area (WIA) employed youth 

exclusively within the state park system, Indianapolis and Marion County leaders wanted to 

create a program that responded to local needs. In particular, they agreed that education 

would be a central feature of the SYEI. IPIC and the Mayor’s office knew that Indianapolis 

youth unemployment and high school dropout rates were both on the rise. The planners 

were influenced by the report Cities in Crisis 2009: Closing the Graduation Gap,41 which not 

only described the positive impacts of a high school degree on later employment and 

earnings, but also ranked Indianapolis, with a 30.5% graduation rate, lowest among the 

nation’s 50 largest cities. The planners also knew that only 21% of 10th grade Indianapolis 

Public School42 (IPS) students passed the Graduation Qualifying Exam (GQE), required for 

graduation in the state, and that student learning tends to decline in summer. Research 

shows that students who earn more credits within each academic year are more likely to 

graduate on time.43 Thus the SYEI planners created academic pathways to support all 

youth. 

With a population of about 839,000, Marion County is home to 14% of the state’s 

population, while Indianapolis, the state’s largest city and the 14th largest city in the United 

States,44 comprises 91% of Marion County’s population. The city’s diverse economic base 

includes retail, manufacturing, transportation, professional and business services, health 

care, higher education, and government. Since 1984, the city has used professional and 

amateur sports to quadruple tourism and double hotel space – tourism and conventions are 

major economic factors. Additionally, several insurance companies have located their 

 

38IPIC is the Workforce Investment Board for Indianapolis. 39Source: KIDS Count. 40Indiana has two WIAs: one comprising the city of Indianapolis and Marion County, the other comprising the other 

91 counties in the Balance of State WIA. 

41Cities in Crisis 2009: Closing the Graduation Gap (2009), Editorial Projects in Education, Bethesda, MD, 

conducted for the America’s Promise Alliance. Graduation rate is calculated from following a base of entering ninth 

graders through successive grades to achieving a diploma. 

42IPS, the state’s largest district, has an enrollment of about 38,000 (8,100 in high school). The school population 

is predominantly minority and low-income. Additionally 10% are English Language Learners and 20% are enrolled 

in special education. IPS has five traditional public, four public community, and 15 alternative high schools. (The 

city also has nine public charter high schools and 41 private and religious high schools.) 43Hampden-Thompson, G., Warkentien, S. and Daniel, B. (2009). Course credit accrual and dropping out of high 

school, by student characteristics. Statistics in Brief, National Center for Education Statistics. February. 44http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/tables/SUB-EST2008-01.csv 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

66

headquarters and regional offices in the city. And notably, with the largest stockyards east 

of Chicago, Indianapolis is also an important meatpacking center. 

PART II 

REINVESTMENT AND RECOVERY ACTIONS AND INNOVATIONS: 

LEADERSHIP AND PARTNERSHIP 

IPIC has established itself as Central Indiana’s source of workforce development and has 

worked closely with the Mayor’s office to advance city residents’ job skills and employment 

options. The Mayor’s office and IPIC made YouthWorks Indy a top priority, drawing from 

what they knew to craft the kind of SYEP that they had not run in more than a decade. 

They designed a six-week program to provide a combination of employment and educational 

opportunities that would enhance future earning power. Each day was split; youth had 

either morning classes and afternoon work or morning work and afternoon classes. The first 

week of the SYEI was to be an intensive work readiness program. YouthWorks Indy 

participants were paid $8.50 an hour at job sites (up to $170/week) and a stipend of $50 

per day (up to $250/week) for the school component. The latter higher fee underscored a 

high value on the educational component, and offset barriers such as transportation, 

childcare costs, and the opportunity costs of going to school and not working. 

IPIC placed day to day program oversight largely in the hands of two highly dedicated staff. 

The first, responsible for coordinating activities and responding to questions, problems, and 

issues that might arise, was the linchpin of the SYEI. She carried two cell phones every 

day, poised to respond to concerns. The second, an experienced school teacher, was hired 

temporarily as the IPIC summer educational coordinator. She became the liaison to 

schools, as both monitor and supporter. She conducted daily visits to schools and met with 

teachers and students to help respond to issues. 

YouthWorks Indy was brought to scale so quickly because IPIC relied on its deep 

partnership base to contract out for virtually all services. (See Table 1 for a list of key 

operational partners.) The planners looked for partner agencies that had a sense of 

community responsibility, a history of following through, experience serving WIA 

participants, and a reputation as reliable players. Partner roles were as follows: 

 IPIC received DOL waivers to contract with two existing WIA partner agencies – one to 

recruit youth and determine eligibility (Job Works), and the other to monitor worksites 

and manage payroll (River Valley Resources (RVR)). RVR was the employer of record 

for all youth. Staff set up no-fee direct deposit accounts with debit cards for all youth; 

educational stipends and earnings were deposited electronically in these accounts.45 

 The planners used an RFP to select education providers. IPIC contracted with the 

successful applicants: IPS, three charter schools, Ivy Tech Community College of Central 

Indiana,46 and the Metropolitan Indianapolis-Central Indiana Area Health Education 

Center47 of St. Vincent’s Hospital. 

 

45 For many youth, this was their first bank account and their first challenge in managing money. 46 Ivy Tech is the largest community college system in the nation, with a large workforce training program and a 

number of certificate programs. 

47 MICI-AHEC provides a variety of activities to introduce youth in grades K-12 to health care career possibilities 

and encourage them to consider health care careers. 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

67

 The planners depended on their partners to help them seek for-profit, nonprofit, and 

public sector worksites. The mayor encouraged city agencies to hire youth and appealed 

to other city employers. The education services RFP set a goal for the schools to provide 

90% of the job opportunities for their students. 

Two other early partners were Goodwill Industries and the Greater Educational 

Opportunities (GEO) Foundation. 

 Goodwill, a large Indianapolis employer and IPIC board member, has a corporate office 

and 46 retail stores in Indianapolis. It also owns and operates Indianapolis Metropolitan 

High School (MET), a 325-student charter school. While Goodwill had not planned to 

hire youth this summer, they did so readily because the grant was in line with their 

mission to help their community. Goodwill was already dedicated to employing 

individuals with barriers to employment, including those who lacked a high school 

diploma or had been incarcerated. Through YouthWorks Indy, Goodwill could gain 

summer labor for its many stores while providing summer learning for their MET 

students to fight the summer academic decline and employing their charter school 

teachers. 

 The GEO Foundation develops and manages charter schools. It operates three charter 

schools in Indiana and one in Colorado. Its Charter School Service Center supports 

charter schools in Indiana, conducts public information campaigns about charter schools, 

and produces publications for charter school officials, parents, and students. Seeing the 

SYEI as an opportunity to expose youth to a charter school environment and get 

visibility for the schools, the Foundation encouraged two of its Indianapolis schools to 

respond to the RFP. Both were selected to offer educational services to in-school youth: 

Fall Creek Academy (K-12, 352 students) and Fountain Creek Academy (grades 5-12, 

206 students).

Table 1 

Key Operational Partners in YouthWorks Indy48

Organization Type/Affiliation Focus 

Job Works Current WIA contractor Eligibility determination, 

enrollment, work readiness 

River Valley Resources Current WIA contractor Employer of record, worksite 

monitoring, payroll 

Fountain Square Academy Charter School In-school youth 

Indianapolis Metropolitan High 

School Charter School In-school youth 

George Washington Community 

High School IPS In-school youth 

Arsenal Technical High School IPS In-school youth 

Ivy Tech Community College Community College Out-of-school youth GED, 

occupational skills certification 

Metropolitan Indianapolis Central 

Indiana Area Health Education 

Center 

St. Vincent Health Medical youth program 

 

48 See Appendix 1 for more details regarding youth outcomes and experiences. 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

68

Planning the Educational Component 

IPIC and the Mayor’s office convened representatives of three charter schools49 prior to 

the RFP process to help plan the SYEI’s educational component. While charter schools 

educate just four percent of school-age youth in the state, they are considered innovative, 

entrepreneurial, and unencumbered by bureaucracy, with influential business members on 

their boards. It was also hoped that they would see participating as SYEI educational 

sites as an opportunity to recruit students for the upcoming academic year.

50 

In these early meetings it was agreed that YouthWorks Indy should meet the educational 

needs of all eligible youth, including those who had failed a high school class and needed 

to recover credits, needed to take additional classes to graduate on time, needed test 

preparation after having failed the Graduation Qualifying Exam (GQE), or had dropped out 

of school and needed tutoring to pass the GED. If youth were interested in health careers 

or in specific trades, they could enroll in the medical youth program or take occupational 

certificate courses. 

Key educational program decisions were made during these early planning meetings: 

 Youth would be paid a significant educational stipend to emphasize the importance of 

academics, defray expenses such as childcare, and provide motivation to come to 

school. 

 To avoid conflicts over stipends, YouthWorks Indy participants were to be separated 

from regular summer school students who were not being paid stipends. 

 To offer both education and work, but avoid requiring a long summer day in the 

classroom, youth would attend classes for half of each day and work for the other 

half.51 

 Knowing that some GED students would have too much ground to cover in just six 

weeks, and to reward progress, the program would fund an additional six weeks of 

GED preparation (12 weeks total), 

Due to the timeline and the recognition that schools often make the most informed policy 

decisions for themselves, some decisions were left to principals and teachers. For 

example, each school would decide which classes to teach and establish its own 

attendance and behavioral policy. 

IPIC issued three RFPs52 to create the following three educational tracks: 

1. In-School Youth Program: Youth who are still enrolled in high school but need to 

make up credits for courses they had not passed, or need assistance to pass the 

GQE. The first RFP was issued to all public schools (including public charter schools) 

to teach credit courses such as science, speech, English language arts, and math, 

and to provide remedial work to prepare students to pass the GQE. IPIC asked 

schools to teach at least 50 students for the session and to offer a small class 

environment, and wanted schools that were spread out geographically. All four 

 

49The three schools were chosen to represent different educational approaches. One of those involved in the 

planning responded to the RFP; the other two did not. 50In 2001, the state allowed charter schools for the first time, giving school districts, state colleges and 

universities, and the Indianapolis Mayor (a strong charter school advocate) the authority to sponsor charter 

schools. There are currently 31 charter schools in the city, 17 authorized by the Mayor. 51The exception was the medical youth program, which operated on a different schedule: full-day classes were 

taught Monday and Friday; students worked full day shifts from Tuesday through Thursday. 52IPIC gave schools 7-10 days to respond, forgoing oral interviews. Despite the tight time frame, IPIC was 

pleased by the school response. 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

69

institutions that responded were funded (three public charter schools and the IPS 

(with two schools participating)). 

2. Out-of-School Youth Program: Youth who want to earn a GED or occupational 

certificate. The second RFP was for GED and certificate courses for out-of-school 

youth. Two proposals were submitted; one contract was awarded to Ivy Tech 

Community College, which offered college credit, credentialed programs, and 

established relationships with employers. Ivy Tech subsequently contracted with the 

Washington Township Adult Education Program to run an accelerated six-week GED 

preparation program. 

3. Medical Youth Program: Youth who are high academic achievers and interested in 

instruction and work experience in medical and health care careers (a growing 

demand occupation in the area). The third RFP was for a health care careers 

program for in-school youth. Four proposals were submitted; one contract was 

awarded to the Metropolitan Indianapolis Central Indiana Area Health Education 

Center (MICI-AHEC) – St. Vincent’s Hospital. 

Planning the Work Component 

The planners had multiple employment-related goals for the SYEI: to provide work 

experience and earnings, encourage employers in all sectors of the economy to take 

action for youth, and begin to build a culture of summer youth employment. One 

employer commented that without the SYEI, “We wouldn’t have been able to hire kids. 

Older people are coming back in the job market for jobs that normally go to teenagers. 

[YouthWorks Indy was] the only way these kids got summer employment.” With so many 

adults out of work, the planners also saw the SYEI as a way to bring youth into daily 

contact with working adults. 

Because all youth were enrolled in educational activities, youth could work only half-days. 

The planners decided to use job sharing to take full advantage of work opportunities. Two 

youth could share one job, one working in the morning and going to school in the 

afternoon, the other going to school in the morning and working in the afternoon. 

Although ensuring that jobs included learning opportunities and youth development 

principles was challenging due to the timeline, IPIC did seek jobs that provided meaningful 

work experience in diverse settings. At minimum, work would give youth an opportunity 

to learn problem-solving skills (e.g., how to deal with supervisors, resolve conflicts with 

coworkers, and manage time and tasks) as well as basic financial management skills (for 

many youth, these were the first paychecks they ever earned). 

IPIC compensated for a lack of history of summer job placement for youth53 by turning to 

their education contractors and to the mayor. In its RFP for education providers, IPIC set 

a goal for schools to provide 90% of the jobs needed by youth. The education contractors 

were prepared to hire youth; in addition, the charter schools reached out through their 

boards and other business contacts. The Mayor encouraged city agencies to hire youth 

and also appealed to other employers. 

 

53IPIC runs the Youth Employment Services (YES) Initiative, which serves at-risk, out-of-school, hard-to-employ 

Indianapolis youth and young adults aged 15 to 25. It contracts with community-based organizations that assist 

these youth in reaching their employment potential. IPIC’s YES experience helped the organization plan and 

implement the 2009 SYEI, but there are substantial differences between the year-round YES initiative and the 

summer program. 
One planning group member said the process was “an organic growth of job opportunities. 

We reached out to the IPIC board, the charter school boards, the school system, and 

private companies that have demonstrated their commitment to the community.” The 

planners also saw employer recruitment as a way to connect the corporate community to 

workforce development and raise IPIC’s profile. 

Table 2 

YouthWorks Indy Primary Employers 

Employer Type of Employer 

Number of 

Youth Hired By 

Employer 

Percentage of 

all Youth Hired 

by Employers 

Education Providers 

Indianapolis Public Schools Public 86 14% 

MICI-AHEC Private, nonprofit 54 9% 

Charter Schools Private, nonprofit 24 4% 

Ivy Tech Private, nonprofit 19 3% 

Other Primary Employers 

Indy Parks Public 83 13% 

Goodwill Industries Private, nonprofit 67 11% 

Keys To Work Private, for profit 34 5% 

YMCA Private, nonprofit 34 5% 

United Northwest Area 

Development Foundation 

Private, nonprofit 33 5% 

Clarian Hospital (non MICIAHEC jobs) Private, nonprofit 33 5% 

GEO Foundation Private, nonprofit 11 2% 

As shown in Table 2, YouthWorks Indy recruited 48 employers who provided more than 

200 worksites. The education partners provided jobs for 30% of the youth; and five other 

employers hired an additional 46%. Most employers were private nonprofits: 34 

employers provided 60% of placements. Three public sector employers provided 27% of 

placements, and 11 private, for-profit employers provided 13% of placements. With more 

time to develop work opportunities with private for-profit employers, these numbers 

probably would have increased; even so, they represent almost one-quarter of all 

employers.

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

70
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

71

Recruiting and Training Youth 

IPIC recruited youth through WorkOne one-stop centers, television and radio, community 

based organizations, existing government programs, and churches. IPIC also contacted 

Indianapolis and Marion County youth who had applied for the Balance of State WIA54

summer employment program but were ineligible because of residence. An initial plan to 

do pre-application screening by phone proved too time-consuming, so all interested youth 

were invited to come to WorkOne centers to complete their applications. While it would 

have been ideal to match eligible youth with job opportunities at the end of the application 

process, this was not possible because worksites were still being developed. 

IPIC calculated its enrollment capacity at 690. Over 1,800 applications streamed in during 

the one-week application period. As noted earlier, Job Works was responsible for 

determining whether applicants met eligibility requirements for age (14-24), low-income 

status, citizenship, selective service registration, and residence in Indianapolis or Marion 

County. Eligibility determination sessions were held for five days in late afternoon and 

early evening for the convenience of youth and their parents. Each school site later 

conducted additional recruitment and eligibility determination. About 800 youth 

completed the process and were determined eligible.55 

While the plan was to give priority to veterans and current and former participants in 

Indianapolis and Marion County WIA programs (such as Jobs for America’s Graduates and 

Youth Employment Services), only about 13% of applicants came from these groups. As 

it turned out, an IPIC staff member said, “We didn’t have to turn anyone away that was 

eligible.” Ultimately, the program enrolled everyone found eligible, a total of 645 youth 

(14 dropped out during the week of work readiness classes). 

WIA regulations authorize states and local governments to establish policies and 

guidelines to determine acceptable WIA eligibility documentation, as long as they are 

consistent with Federal law.56 IPIC tried to reduce the burden of documenting eligibility, 

and Job Works staff reported that youth had no serious difficulties providing the required 

documentation. 

To prepare youth to succeed at work, Job Works staff taught five half-day intensive work 

readiness classes during the first week of the program. Combining lecture, discussion, 

video presentations, and writing activities, the curriculum covered four main topics: 

1. Developing a resume that effectively presents skills, education, experience, and 

references (included goal setting exercises, skill inventories, resume formats, and 

model cover letters). 

2. Presenting oneself in an employment interview (included employer expectations, 

how to answer problem questions, and practice interviews). 

3. Conducting oneself in the workplace (included the importance of being on time, 

appropriate dress, dealing with conflict, and taking responsibility for one’s work). 

 

54As noted earlier, Indiana has two WIAs: one comprising the city of Indianapolis and Marion County, the other 

comprising the other 91 counties in the Balance of State WIA. 

55Of the 800 eligible applicants, 200 failed to show up for the first day of work readiness classes. While there 

was a short wait-list, partners had to renew their mobilization efforts to fill these 200 spots quickly. The 

program needed youth to participate for the full six weeks, since five percent of funds to schools hinged on a 

90% youth completion rate. 

56DOL TEGL 12-01 Attachment C. Also, Indiana allows self-attestation for parental income, which may have been 

a factor in their relatively smooth certification experience. 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

72

4. Managing one’s earnings (included understanding payroll deductions and creating 

and managing a budget). 

To assess participants’ understanding of the work environment, a pre- and post-test was 

given at the beginning and end of the week. Youth also completed a job interest 

questionnaire and began going on job interviews with potential employers. By the end of 

the work readiness week, all youth were given their worksite assignments. 

Implementing the Educational Component 

As described earlier, the educational component provided multiple pathways for youth to 

meet educational goals: high school course credit recovery, GQE or GED preparation, 

occupational certificates, and health care career training. Except for the medical youth 

program,57 classes were small, often 15 or fewer students per class. Credits earned at a 

charter school would transfer to any public school. 

The educational component left decision-making ability in the hands of schools. Schools 

devised schedules, decided which classes to offer, and tapped their own teachers or hired 

teachers from other schools. School partners stepped up to the challenge of developing 

policies quickly. Directors were proud of their ability to handle issues that arose, such as 

student behavior. In a two-hour focus group reflecting on program successes and 

challenges, one director said, “real-life problem-solving in this program was phenomenal.” 

IPIC’s Summer Educational Coordinator strongly supported the schools’ problem-solving. 

Teachers and administrators appreciated having her as a sounding board and looked to 

her skill in negotiating conflicts. As a public school teacher in the district, she was familiar 

with the Indianapolis public education system and helped teachers build classroom 

management techniques within the SYEI context. She visited all schools over the 

summer, and responded as needed when student behavior concerns arose. Teachers and 

administrators saw the educational coordinator as an essential position. 

 

57 Students in each cohort of the health care careers program attended classes in a group. 

Table 3 

YouthWorks Indy Educational Component 

School Course Credit or 

Credential Schedule Youth 

enrolled

Metropolitan 

High School 

3 classes: EnglishDebate, Pre-algebra, 

or Earth Science 

Students were enrolled in one of the three 

classes for four hours each day. 92 

George 

Washington 

Community 

High School 

3 classes: GQE 

English/Language, 

GQE Math, and Virtual 

Learning Credit 

Recovery 

Each class was one hour and 15 minutes. 

If students needed to take both the math 

and English sections of the GQE, they 

rotated among all three classes. Those 

who needed to retake only one section 

attended the relevant class, then spent 21⁄2 

hours in the credit recovery lab. 

92 

Arsenal 

Technical High 

School 

3 classes: GQE 

English/Language, 

GQE Math, and Virtual 

Learning Credit 

Recovery 

Each class was one hour and 15 minutes. 

Students rotated among the three courses 

each day. 

102 
School Course Credit or 

Credential Schedule Youth 

enrolled

Fall Creek 

Academy 

2 classes: Speech and 

Business Math 

Each class was two hours. Students 

attended both classes each day. 45 

Fountain 

Square 

Academy 

2 classes: Speech and 

Business Math 

Each class was two hours. Students 

attended both classes each day. 43 

GED and five 

certificate courses 

listed below 

Each course was four hours, either in the 

morning or the afternoon. 

GED 116 

Patient Access Specialist (certification: CHAA) 31 

Apartment Maintenance Technician (certification: CAMT) 15 

IT/Computer Fundamentals (certification: A+ and N+) 20 

HVAC and Weatherization (certification: EPA Section 608 

technician) 15 

Ivy Tech 

Community 

College 

Call Center Support (certification: CSS and IC3) 20 

Metropolitan 

Indianapolis 

Central 

Indiana Area 

Health 

Education 

Center - St. 

Vincent’s 

Healthcare 

Center 

Classes focused on 

work readiness, but 

also included 

certification in 

HIPAA, CPR, and first 

aid 

Classes met from 8:30-5:00 on Monday and 

Friday. Work experience was scheduled for 

full days Tuesday through Thursday. 

54 (in 

two 

cohorts) 

Recovering high school credit and preparing for the Graduate Qualifying Exam 

(GQE). For some youth, the opportunity to earn high school credits or take GQE 

preparation courses was crucial. Academic courses were offered at the two IPS schools 

and the three charter schools. Schools could choose which subjects to offer, but because 

each site taught only two or three classes, they had to teach subjects that most students 

would likely need. Course options were thus necessarily limited. In all but one school 

students rotated among classes. For those who did not need a specific class, schools tried 

to adapt the class or the schedule. For example, if a student already had a credit for a 

speech class, the teacher could construct additional assignments for the student to create 

an advanced speech class. 

MET was the only school that asked youth to choose a single class to attend for four 

hours. This decision was consistent with MET’s academic year teaching strategy, where 

students have a homeroom teacher who stays with them throughout high school. In one 

class, two youth said the time went by quickly, with engaging activities and entertaining 

games to illuminate the material. In another class, some youth said the four-hour session 

felt too long. One explained, “It can get boring in the classroom for four hours. They 

should have thought it out. Are we really going to put teenagers in one class for four 

hours?” 

Students at Fall Creek Charter School took two classes: two hours of speech/debate and 

two hours of business math. During the Brandeis team’s visit, students were debating a 

legislative proposal to ban texting among teenagers while driving. Others were doing 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

73
math exercises on the computer. One, a Fall Creek student during the academic year, 

was highly motivated, college bound, and truly interested in being in school over the 

summer. She found both classes a welcome challenge. 

Students’ classroom experience was not associated with whether they were in a charter 

school or an IPS school. Within each school, there were youth who enjoyed their summer 

classes. The educational stipend was not their only motivation: they valued the credit or 

preparatory coursework, intended to graduate from high school, and had a positive 

connection with at least one of their summer teachers. 

Earning a GED. The GED program was taught on the Downtown and Lawrence campuses 

of Ivy Tech Community College. Teachers from the Washington Township Adult Education 

Program, which had developed the accelerated curriculum, taught the classes. In all, 116 

enrolled in, and 81 completed, the course over six weeks. To ensure material was fresh in 

students’ minds, the state agreed to test those in the GED program at the end of the 

course, rather than make them wait until the test was next offered during the school year. 

Immediately after the six-week course, 13 earned a GED and 73 demonstrated progress 

toward that goal. As noted earlier, the Mayor’s office realized that not all students taking 

a six-week course would be prepared to take the test, and offered to pay the educational 

stipend for up to six additional weeks if needed. 

We spoke with a single mother of three on the last day of class. The summer funding 

allowed her to be self-sufficient and pay childcare and rent while studying. Recently out of 

jail, she felt indebted for the chance to change her life course. Her goal – to sign up for 

Ivy Tech’s patient access program and work in a medical setting – requires a GED. “I 

have to further my life. This is the most positive thing I’ve done in years. It was a 

steppingstone. The money is awesome, but the learning is better. In the end the money 

is gone, but the GED is here to stay... I know I’m going to pass. If I didn’t do anything 

else every day, I came to class.” The respectful and patient teacher, small class size, and 

one-on-one support created the learning environment she needed; before the class moved 

to the next assignment, the teacher and aide made sure students understood key 

concepts. 

Earning an advanced certificate. As the state’s largest workforce training provider, Ivy 

Tech knew the local job market and offered occupational training certificates in five fields 

that would likely need new hires: 

 Patient access: preparation to work in health care. 

 Apartment maintenance: basic electrical, plumbing, and other skills needed to work 

in an apartment complex. 

 Computer fundamentals: this course merged two advanced computer courses into 

one. 

 HVAC: repair and maintenance skills for work with heating, ventilation, and air 

conditioning systems. 

 Call center technician: preparation to work in customer service. 

One student in the HVAC course said that if he was not in YouthWorks, he would likely be 

working at a fast food chain. This opportunity was “leaps and bounds better. You get to 

go to school. If you study hard you get a certification you can fall back on for the rest of 

your life.” Majoring in hospitality in college, he found that this course provided an 

understanding of issues that arise in managing a large hotel or even maintaining a home. 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

74
However, he would have appreciated a job experience that would have allowed him to 

apply the skills he was learning in class. 

Experience on the job. IPIC’s objective was to provide youth with meaningful work – 

“not just throwaway jobs” – where output is valued and job performance matters. Youth 

performed more than 50 types of jobs. Positions included office staff, maintenance 

workers, camp counselors, and medical assistants. Some jobs combined varied 

experiences. For example, Indy Parks youth workers did landscaping, trail monitoring, 

and office work. 

The learning component in the jobs varied. The medical youth program work experience 

intentionally included a learning component (e.g., job shadowing and hands-on 

instruction), linked classes and work, and conveyed the expectation that supervisors 

would be mentors. For other jobs, at minimum, youth workers learned some job skills, 

and learned to be punctual, call if they were going to be late or absent, work well with 

coworkers and with supervisors, and deal with conflict. They learned transferable skills in 

time management, self-management, and problem-solving in a real-life setting. The 

supervisor’s commitment seemed to be the key to additional learning. Many supervisors 

were committed to making the work experience a learning opportunity: jobs with 

enhanced learning opportunities were those in which supervisors gave youth 

responsibility, a measure of autonomy, and regular feedback on performance. Other 

supervisors saw their responsibility as making sure that youth arrived at work on time, 

completed their tasks competently, and got along with coworkers. Some youth said they 

felt fully engaged and were learning how to be successful at work; others said they did 

their jobs, but saw few learning opportunities. Still, while there were some attendance 

issues, misbehavior was not a problem at worksites. 

Job matching. The YouthWorks Indy application asked youth about job interests and 

preferred location, and IPIC tried to match youth to worksites that reflected their 

interests, fit their education schedules, and were located near their homes. However, this 

was difficult to do because youth and worksites were being recruited simultaneously and 

independently. Even youth who were taking classes to earn a certificate were not always 

placed in positions where they could apply their developing skills. There were exceptions. 

All medical youth program participants were placed in hospital settings, and many youth 

in occupational training at Ivy Tech were placed in related fields, often at the school itself. 

Matching was complicated further because some employers had requirements such as 

minimum age or criminal background checks; only youth who met these requirements 

were referred to those employers. 

Long commutes were an unfortunate consequence of both the challenge in matching by 

location and the city’s limited public transportation system. IPIC was partially successful 

in minimizing commuting time on one end by placing youth in jobs that were close to their 

homes. Still, many commutes were long. In one striking case, a young man traveled 71⁄2 

hours each day, from home to work, work to school, and school to home. When asked 

why he endured the long commute, he said, “Can’t beat the money.” 

Youths’ satisfaction with their work experience varied. Most said that the program 

provided a needed job, even if the work required the repetitive tasks of any entry level 

position. Many were grateful for the opportunity to learn new skills. Others expressed 

dissatisfaction with their worksite location and/or responsibilities. Some disappointments 

seemed to have arisen because the application’s job interest assessment raised 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

75
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

76

expectations about being placed in positions that matched their expressed interests. 

While IPIC staff knew that the match was important, their experience confirmed that the 

match was central to youths’ satisfaction. 

Combining Work and Learning 

Medical youth program. The goal of the YouthWorks Indy medical youth program – 

operated by the Metropolitan Indianapolis-Central Indiana Area Health Education Center 

(MICI-AHEC)58 at St. Vincent Healthcare Center – was to expose youth to health care 

career opportunities. 

AHEC goals are to increase access to health care, improve health care outcomes, and 

address the health workforce needs of medically underserved communities by establishing 

partnerships between the institutions that train health professionals and the communities 

that need them most. MICI-AHEC provides activities to introduce youth in grades K-12 to 

health care careers and encourages them to consider these careers. The SYEI was a 

natural expansion of these activities. The program was actively engaged with multiple 

departments at local hospitals, had a highly qualified, experienced staff, and a tested 

career-development, work readiness curriculum. 

The medical youth program was YouthWorks Indy’s most popular educational offering by 

far. Enrollment was limited by available classroom space and work slots, and all available 

slots were filled by the third day of applications (to increase capacity, the program was 

offered to two four-week cohorts). Preference was given to youth enrolled in the city’s 

Health Professions Magnet School or with demonstrated interest in the field. Because it 

included its own work readiness classes, youth in the program did not participate in those 

offered by the SYEI. 

Work experience was in the form of job shadowing. Youth were assigned individually or in 

pairs to different departments at two hospitals, St. Vincent’s and Clarian. They worked in 

one department and shadowed the same professional for all four weeks. They reported 

learning a lot from the one-on-one instruction, watching the professionals, and gaining 

practical experience. 

Classes offered certification in CPR and HIPAA rules. The curriculum focused on work 

readiness, preparing for their summer jobs, and thinking ahead to careers. Topics 

included exploring health careers, financial planning, college planning, resume 

preparation, and interviewing skills. The director explained, “We want to show them all 

the different types of jobs in the health care field ... not just nursing, jobs like respiratory 

therapy, x-ray technician, or even dietician.” 

The few behavior problems that emerged during class hours were resolved with direct 

intervention. As the director put it, “I run a tight ship. I took them aside and talked to 

them.” 

 

58 An AHEC is a network of regional centers coordinated through a central office (in this case, the Indiana School 

of Medicine in Indianapolis). Each regional center is designed to assess and meet the needs of the region’s 

citizens. AHEC has been in Indiana since 2001; MICI-AHEC, established in 2006, is one of six AHECs in the 

state. 
Indianapolis Parks System. Indy Parks maintains a system of 206 regional, 

community, and neighborhood parks throughout Marion County, as well as recreation 

facilities, 39 miles of trails, and conservation corridors. Youth worked in more than two 

dozen Indy Parks locations. In the Greenways division, they worked as trail monitors. 

Their assignment was to walk the trails in pairs (with pick up and delivery by park staff at 

different trail points), and report on trail conditions. They were given vests with the 

Greenways logo and pockets for maps and basic first-aid supplies. Each pair had a cell 

phone in case of emergency and to report problems that needed immediate attention. 

The youth also did basic trail maintenance, such as clearing brush and helping plant and 

transplant shrubs. On rainy days, they had office assignments, such as organizing maps 

or doing internet research. 

The supervisors delivered a clear message that “this is work, not play. If they finish early, 

we give them reading or office assignments.” The supervisors focused on work quality 

and frequent feedback. During biweekly, in-person performance reviews, “We tell them 

what they need to do to improve, but we’re always looking for signs of progress and we 

congratulate them on good work.” There were only minor attendance and behavior 

problems. “I had to learn to give them a break. They’re kids in their first job. I try to 

remember what it was like to be 16.” 

The supervisors developed learning opportunities such as: 

 Creating a trail monitoring checklist to carry with them and use to report maintenance 

needs. 

 Doing research on the internet and in books on site to select pictures and create a 

catalog of local trees, shrubs, and plants, then identify what they see on the trails. 

 Using trail statistics and contour maps to talk about why some sections of trail are 

used more than others. 

 Writing lessons learned on the job each week. Supervisors read what they wrote and 

talked about it during performance reviews. 

The summer experience was more work for supervisors, but they found it personally 

rewarding as well as good for the system, especially in terms of increased user 

satisfaction: “We’ve been able to catch up on maintenance because they identify 

problems. We get fewer complaints about the condition of the trails.” 

Youths’ experience was more mixed. All enjoyed the interaction with people using the 

trails, and gained confidence when they could answer questions or offer assistance. Some 

enjoyed the outdoor work and the variety of tasks: “It keeps us active and it teaches us a 

lot. And it looks good on a resume when you show all the things you’ve done.” All would 

have preferred more choice in work assignments: “Maybe they could put up a list of jobs 

and we could sign up for what we wanted.” Some simply did not like working in the 

parks. 

Creating a professional presence at the GEO Foundation. The GEO (Greater 

Educational Opportunities) Foundation develops and manages charter schools, including 

two of the SYEI charter schools. GEO initially employed 13 youth; ten finished the SYEI 

(the program dropped three because of problems at school). Youth worked mostly in 

preparing and distributing marketing materials, but the jobs were intended to teach 

broader workplace and life skills. 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

77
Four offices were set aside for the youth, who were called interns. Youth spent the first 

week getting acquainted (through questionnaires and interactive games) and getting 

situated. Each got a notebook, a calendar, a mailbox, a password to access the GEO 

server, and an e-mail account. The Foundation also used this time to teach workplace 

skills – building on the topics covered in work readiness training, but focusing more on 

responsibility and presentation. The youth were asked to introduce themselves 

individually and conduct a five-minute interview with each staff member, learning about 

them and their role in the organization. The supervisor also used this time to get to know 

the young people’s “talents, goals, interests, and skills.” 

In the second week, youth started to develop marketing materials for the Foundation and 

its schools. They were given models to consider, but had to develop layouts and 

additional products on their own. Each was given individual projects as well. The 

supervisor said, “I wanted them all to have long-term and short-term projects, to teach 

them to balance competing priorities. [The short-term projects also] gave them 

something they would be interested in, succeed at, and get positive feedback on.” 

Attendance was an issue at first, and some youth had to be reminded to call if they were 

going to be absent or late, but the youth responded well: “If you put young people in an 

organized, disciplined environment, they’ll surprise you.” Youth were given one-to-one 

critiques as needed and formal reviews at the middle and end of the summer. 

Over the course of the summer, there were other learning opportunities, including: 

 A short-term project asking businesses to put posters in the windows for a charter 

school event. Youth were taught how to present themselves effectively and given logo 

polo shirts to wear. 

 Job shadowing to match youths’ interests, e.g., with a local photographer, a journalist, 

and an attorney. 

 Opportunities to develop professional Facebook pages and resumes to post on their 

pages. Youth were also introduced to the benefits and perils of social networking 

sites. 

The supervisor found the first three weeks time-consuming because each youth got so 

much individual attention, but found the overall experience very positive: “We got a lot of 

work done and I think we made a strong, positive impact on the students. They all have 

something they can take away and use.” The youth too were very positive: “They’re real 

serious about the work, but you still have fun. I’ve got a Facebook resume, I did a bunch 

of projects, and I learned how to speak up, how to ask questions. And I made money.” 

Impact of YouthWorks Indy 

Before YouthWorks Indy, the summer employment outlook had been bleak for youth. 

Young people widely recognized that few other summer job opportunities were available. 

One said, “What would I do if I didn’t have this job? Lay around the house, get in 

trouble.” Another said, “This is a good program. If the kids weren’t here they’d be out 

doing other things. There weren’t a lot of options.” YouthWorks Indy kept youth engaged 

and provided needed earnings, academic support, job skills and connections to the job 

market, and an important step toward adulthood. 

Youth wages during an economic recession. YouthWorks Indy provided money 

desperately needed by youth and their families. Participants’ wages were substantial from 

their perspective – some earned more than the aides who were tutoring them and more 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

78
than their parents were earning. The long commutes were often worth it, because the 

salary was higher than they could earn anywhere else. Many youth gave paychecks to 

their families for necessities – food, rent, and utility bills. Others looked to their own 

future. One young person said, “This is going toward getting my own place. If it weren’t 

for this program I would have difficulty making the money.” Another, whose mother was 

in technical school, was proud to say, “I’m the breadwinner this summer.” 

Academic support. Many of the youth interviewed were deeply grateful for the chance 

to make up credits, graduate on time, prepare to succeed at the GQE, or earn a GED or 

certificate that would launch them toward new career pathways and strengthen their 

chances of employment in this tight market. 

Job skills and connections to the job market. For most of the youth interviewed by 

the Brandeis team, the SYEI was their first sustained exposure to the workplace. They 

learned by observation, by instruction, and by experience what it was like to go to work 

every day. They worked in a variety of settings and with a variety of people, and they 

learned how to get along at work. One youth, working at a nonprofit, explained, “You 

meet all kinds of people, see all kinds of problems. I learned how to talk to people, how 

to listen.” 

Perhaps the most common work lesson that youth mentioned was the importance of 

responsibility. One, working as a janitor, said that, to him, responsibility meant “coming 

in every day, working hard, doing my job right. Now that I know what I can do, if I run 

out of work, I always find something that needs to be done. And I do it.” 

Others talked about supervisors helping with writing resumes and preparing for job 

interviews after the summer. For some, the summer position brought the possibility of 

longer-term employment at their current site or important connections to other job 

possibilities. 

Steps toward adulthood. Many youth said that the SYEI gave them the sense of 

entering into adulthood. This was especially true for high school students at MET. One 

said, “I have to get myself to learn, and have to be at work at 7:30 a.m. Then I have to 

get here [at MET] by 1 p.m. I’m going into adulthood. I have to be more independent.” 

Another said, “It’s a more professional experience, getting me ready for careers. It made 

me feel older, more mature, giving you the experience of being on your own, paying your 

own bills.... It gives me the feeling of how my parents feel when they come home from 

work: tired.” 

Students at Washington High School echoed the same theme: “It made me grow up ... 

made me realize what the real world is about ... taking care of everything.” A student 

who was pregnant was saving her money toward the future: “[The program] made me 

more mature, ready for a real job, learning how to budget.... They made us have a 

finance plan.” 

Challenges and Lessons Learned 

IPIC managed through and learned from challenges in developing and implementing the 

SYEI. IPIC staff were open and frank with the Brandeis team in talking about challenges 

as well as about innovations, adaptations, and lessons they learned in creating a complex 

SYEI within a tight timeline. 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

79
Early payroll challenge. The SYEI faced some unexpected payroll-related concerns, 

mainly during the first week, before individual bank accounts had been established for 

each youth so that direct deposit and debit cards could be set up. Many of the youth had 

never had bank accounts, and mistrusted banks and direct deposit. Also, it was disruptive 

to have the stipends arrive midday at school. Once participants received their check, 

some left for the day, forgoing class work. Some parents were waiting to take their child’s 

paycheck: “We had lots of students with parents taking money. We encouraged 

participants to open two [bank] accounts so they didn’t have to give parents everything.” 

Payroll in the early weeks was also sometimes slow, and some young people weren’t sure 

who they should turn to sort out paperwork issues. 

Decentralization. IPIC had to contract with two separate firms, Job Works and River 

Valley Resources, to enroll and set up payroll because neither had the staff to complete 

the work on its own. With limited time, IPIC, Job Works, RVR, and individual schools each 

relied on existing infrastructure. IPIC had its own WIA reporting system, Job Works had 

its own system to record application and eligibility determination data, RVR had its own 

system to track hours and workplace issues, and schools kept their own attendance 

records. These separate systems could not communicate with each other. As a result 

there was no single database with information on all participants and activities. Data had 

to be entered manually in the IPIC system and reports from the two contractor systems 

had to be manually reconciled. Among other challenges, it was hard to track whether 

youth were showing up at both work and school, for the data existed on different systems. 

A school site director said he had to call two places just to make sure he knew where the 

kids were. 

As noted earlier, IPIC had only two full-time staff members coordinating activities and 

responding to questions and problems. They rose to the challenge and showed enormous 

dedication and flexibility. However, with the volume of questions and requests, IPIC 

might have benefited from at least one additional full-time staff member assisting with 

coordination. Schools could also have benefited from an onsite liaison with IPIC in 

addition to the educational coordinator. The schools served as students’ home base – as 

one principal said, it was where the youth looked for information and assistance. An 

onsite liaison could have helped youth navigate transportation and payroll issues and 

schools respond to attendance and behavior concerns more quickly. 

Overseeing worksites. Although YouthWorks Indy was much smaller than the Chicago 

and Detroit SYEIs, monitoring over 600 participants at more than 200 scattered worksites 

was still challenging. IPIC had urged employers to work with youth if problems arose, not 

simply fire them, and to call their RVR worksite monitor. The plan was to address 

attendance or behavior issues within a day. But they had planned for about 50 worksites 

(assuming more group placements), while the actual number was more than four times 

larger. In addition, job sharing doubled the number of youth per worksite. Thus RVR did 

not have the resources to monitor worksites closely and respond to issues promptly, and 

had to rely on worksites to report issues; this, however, did not happen consistently. 

Without timely reports, youth could easily fall through the cracks. The program needed a 

user-friendly system to allow supervisors to report attendance and behavior issues as they 

occurred, and to allow RVR real-time access to this information. One solution would be a 

web-based tracking system: each employer would have access to its own youth, while 

RVR would have access to the entire database. 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

80
Day-to-day problem-solving at worksites became the program coordinator’s de facto 

responsibility. She was the person to whom supervisors turned. She was always 

available, by voice, text, and e-mail, to answer questions, respond to problems, and follow 

up on youth issues. She visited most of the worksites and got to know youth and their 

supervisors. Although these efforts were not part of her job description, interviews and 

observations revealed the critical importance of having a capable, energetic staff person to 

respond to immediate issues. 

School attendance, performance, and behavior. With little institutional memory and 

limited infrastructure for running a SYEP, IPIC had to make many decisions based on their 

experience administering other (mostly adult) programs. Their assumptions about youth 

attendance, follow-through, and behavior were in retrospect overly optimistic. 

Specifically, the planners did not anticipate the attendance and behavior problems the 

school program would encounter. Some youth taking afternoon classes were simply tired 

after a morning of work and a long commute, and found it hard to concentrate for four 

hours in the afternoon. Others appeared to have little interest in completing assignments 

or earning credits. One teacher felt that just one-fifth of her students actually wanted to 

attend. Moreover, up to half of the students were not rooted in their home schools. One 

teacher explained, “Students have no ownership of the school.” 

Fall Creek Charter School seemed to have fewer behavioral issues than other YouthWorks 

Indy educational sites. The principal suggested possible reasons for this. First, the 

principal was a strong presence in the building throughout the day, addressing student 

attendance and behavior issues on the spot. Second, nearly half of the summer students 

also attend during the school year. Year-round Fall Creek students take college level 

coursework at an Ivy Tech campus, with the expectation that they will all transition into 

college upon graduation. These students reinforced the school culture in summer. The 

principal explained, “We [give] the message that’s how we do things at the school.” 

The IPIC Summer Educational Coordinator, teachers, and administrators offered lessons 

learned. 

 Teachers and administrators believe that the ability to use the $50 stipend as a 

lever to encourage positive behavior (e.g., attendance and performance) would 

help them help the youth. 

 Drawing a high proportion of summer students from the site’s year-round student 

body helps create a positive culture. Schools with a higher proportion of students 

who also attended during the school year seemed to have an easier time managing 

student behavior. Teachers knew more students, and since a critical mass of 

students knew their host school’s behavioral expectations, they could reinforce 

these expectations among their peers. 

 The principal’s presence is essential. Teachers struggling with student behavior felt 

that stronger support from their principal would have made a difference. 

 Allowing administrators and teachers to know more about students’ academic and 

behavioral history might help them plan and manage. 

 A central tracking system for attendance and behavior would support individual 

school as well as program-wide solutions. 

 An Ivy Tech administrator suggested hiring high school teachers to teach the Ivy 

Tech SYEI courses, since their experience might help them deal more positively 

with the students. 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

81
It should be noted that the target population is disconnected youth who are not typically 

successful in school. For staff to experience classroom issues should not necessarily be 

seen as a surprise or an extraordinary challenge. The level of behavioral and performance 

issues suggest that in a future SYEI the design should be altered, and the target group’s 

needs considered more extensively. For example, YouthWorks Indy might consider 

offering youth a choice between the education and work combination or simply working 

full time. (Unlike school settings, worksites did not report behavior problems.) IPIC 

might also benefit from a consultant or staff member with relevant experience to 

challenge assumptions, discuss likely problems, and suggest constructive solutions. 

Lessons Learned. IPIC and the Mayor’s office set benchmarks to measure SYEI 

performance (see Table 4). They set ambitious targets and used the data to critically 

examine why the program met or failed to meet them. They looked at assumptions 

underlying the design, the commitment of resources, the timely availability of information, 

and each program component. They also surveyed employers after the program ended. 

IPIC staff met internally and with their partners to share observations, insights, and 

suggestions for change. The most obvious concerns pertain to out-of-school youth: the 

dropout rate was higher than expected, while success rates in obtaining a GED or an 

occupational credit, or returning to education or employment, were lower than expected. 

Table 4 

YouthWorks Indy Internal Performance Measures 

Key Indicator Target Performance 

Enrollment 575 645 118% 

♦ in-school youth 349 374 107% 

♦ in-school youth health care 25 54 216% 

♦ out-of-school youth GED 88 116 132% 

♦ out-of-school youth occupational certification 88 101 115% 

Completed full program and work ready certification 

♦ in-school youth 99% 85% 

♦ in-school youth health care 99% 100% 

♦ out-of-school youth GED 99% 80% 

Outcomes 

♦ in-school youth pass or obtain needed credit 70% 74% 

♦ in-school health care students earn HIPAA and CPR certification 70% 100% 

♦ out-of-school youth increase one grade level or more in 6 weeks 70% 90% 

♦ out-of-school youth earn GED within 12 weeks 63% 21% 

♦ out-of-school youth earn an occupational credential 63% 10% 

♦ in-school youth return to school or enter employment 71% 100% 

♦ out-of-school youth return to school or enter employment 72% 52% 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

82
IPIC is producing a compilation of lessons learned, but for the Brandeis team, three 

lessons stood out: 

1. Develop seamless information management systems. 

 It would have been easier to have youth complete an application, be screened, 

and be matched to a worksite in a one-step, on-site application process. 

 To monitor youth dispersed in schools and worksites across the city, a single 

user-friendly internet-based tracking system is needed.

2. Orient and support schools and worksites. 

 While the IPIC staff was extraordinary in responding to questions and requests, 

onsite school liaisons could have assisted IPIC in responding to immediate 

concerns over transportation, scheduling, behavior, and payroll. Additional 

staff to monitor youth at worksites could help report and address issues that 

arise and support employers. 

 A more thorough orientation for schools and worksites would clarify 

expectations and processes. 

3. Create schedules and incentives that maximize youth potential.

 The decision to split the day between work and school recognized that youth 

would find an eight-hour day in summer school difficult. YouthWorks Indy 

teachers and administrators also found that academic classes are best taught 

during the morning. Many teachers and administrators recommended being 

able to use summer wages as an incentive for attendance, behavior, and 

performance at school, rather than as a fixed stipend. However, it may also be 

that some youth need the option of full-time work. 

Conclusion 

YouthWorks Indy was intended not only to put young people to work during a recession, 

but also to improve students’ academic chances. The alarmingly low Indianapolis high 

school graduation rate was last among the nation’s 50 largest cities. Yet without a 

diploma or GED, young people face long-term barriers to employment. Thus, the SYEI 

merged education with work experience for both in-school and out-of-school youth. Youth 

worked in a variety of settings in all sectors of the community – public schools and charter 

schools, nonprofit and for-profit employers. Youth earned desperately needed wages, 

acquired valuable academic credits and credentials, gained lasting job skills, and took 

steps toward self-sufficiency and adulthood. 

When the funds came through, YouthWorks Indy became a top priority for staff from the 

Mayor’s office and IPIC who planned and oversaw the program. IPIC could create 

YouthWorks Indy so quickly because it leaned on its existing partners, and through them 

drew in additional partners from all sectors of the economy. Without the Federal funds, 

Indianapolis and Marion County would likely not have developed an SYEI. Now, however, 

IPIC staff said that summer youth employment is “reborn.” 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

83
INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY 

APPENDIX 1 

Organization Program Strategy Sample Worksite 

Experiences Highlights 

Management and Leadership 

Indianapolis 

Private 

Industry 

Council (IPIC) 

& 

Mayor’s Office 

IPIC established itself 

as Central Indiana’s 

source of workforce 

development and 

worked closely with 

the Mayor’s office to 

advance city residents’ 

job skills and 

employment options. 

Together, they 

designed a six-week 

program –YouthWorks 

Indy – to enhance the 

future earning power 

of 645 youth. 

Educational 

Component: Provided 

multiple pathways for 

youth to meet 

educational goals: high 

school course credit 

recovery, GQE or GED 

preparation, 

occupational 

certificates, and health 

care career training. 

Work Component: 

Multiple goals: to 

provide work 

experience and 

earnings, encourage 

employers in all 

sectors of the economy 

to take action for 

youth, and begin to 

build a culture of 

summer youth 

employment. 

Each day was split for 

youth with morning 

classes and afternoon 

work or morning work 

and afternoon classes. 

The first week of the 

SYEI was to be an 

intensive work 

readiness program. 

YouthWorks Indy 

participants were paid 

$8.50 an hour at job 

sites (up to $170/week) 

and a stipend of $50 

per day (up to 

$250/week) for the 

school component. The 

high value placed on 

the educational 

component offset 

potential barriers such 

as transportation and 

childcare costs. 

Capitalized on existing 

partnership to create systems 

of support and opportunity; 

combined work and learning to 

enhance marketable skills; 

created positive developmental 

settings and age & stage 

appropriate tasks. 

Before YouthWorks Indy, the 

summer employment outlook 

was bleak for youth. One 

youth said, “What would I do if 

I didn’t have this job?” 

JobWorks Determined eligibility, 

enrollment, work 

readiness and provided 

initial training. 

Staff taught five halfday intensive work 

readiness classes to 

645 youth. Classes 

combined lecture, 

discussion, and 

presentations to cover 

aspects of resume 

Leadership, mentorship, 

combined work and learning to 

enhance marketable skills, and 

utilized existing partnerships. 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

84
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

85

Organization Program Strategy Sample Worksite 

Experiences Highlights 

building, soft skills 

(such as interview and 

workplace etiquette), 

and financial planning. 

Education Partners and Worksites 

Indianapolis 

Public Schools 

(IPS): 

 George 

Washington 

Community 

High School 

 Arsenal 

Technical 

High School 

IPS provided 

supplemental 

education classes, or 

course recovery, so 

that students could 

meet HS graduation 

requirements and 

graduate on time. 

George Washington 

Community High School

offered three classes: 

GQE English/Language, 

GQE Math, and Virtual 

Learning Credit 

Recovery for 92 youth. 

Arsenal Technical High 

School offered 3 

classes: GQE 

English/Language, GQE 

Math, & Virtual Learning 

Credit Recovery for 102 

youth. 

Positive development setting; 

academic enrichment. Helped 

youth stay on track to 

graduate, key to lifelong 

employment. 

Charter 

Schools: 

 Indianapolis 

Metropolitan 

High School 

(MET) 

 Fall Creek 

Academy 

 Fountain 

Square 

Academy 

Charter schools also 

provided supplemental 

education classes, or 

course recovery, so 

that students could 

graduate on time. 

Credits earned at a 

charter school would 

transfer to any public 

school. 

MET, operated by 

Goodwill, enrolled 92 

students in one of three 

classes: EnglishDebate, Pre-algebra, or 

Earth Science. 

Fall Creek Academy, 

enrolled 45 students in 

2 classes: Speech & 

Business Math.

Fountain Creek 

Academy, enrolled 43 

students in two classes: 

Speech & Business 

Math.

Positive development setting; 

academic enrichment. Helped 

youth stay on track to 

graduate, key to lifelong 

employment. 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

86

Organization Program Strategy Sample Worksite 

Experiences Highlights 

Ivy Tech 

Community 

College 

 Washington 

Township 

Adult 

Education 

Program 

Ivy Tech enrolled outof-school youth in a 

GED or occupational 

certificate program. 

Ivy Tech subsequently 

contracted with the 

Washington Township 

Adult Education 

Program to run an 

accelerated six-week 

GED preparation 

program. 

Ivy Tech Community 

College: Enrolled 116 in 

GED courses and 

enrolled 101 in one of 

five occupational 

training certificates: 

 Patient Access 

Specialist 

 Apartment 

Maintenance 

Technician

 IT/Computer 

Fundamentals 

 HVAC & 

Weatherization 

 Call Center Support

Academic goal-setting. Helped 

launch youth toward new 

career pathways and 

strengthen chances of 

employment. 

“This is the most positive thing 

I’ve done in years. It was a 

steppingstone. The money is 

awesome, but the learning is 

better. In the end, the money 

is gone, but the GED is here to 

stay.” 

Metropolitan 

IndianapolisCentral 

Indiana Area 

Health 

Education 

Center

MICI-AHEC enrolled inschool youth who were 

high academic 

achievers and 

interested in 

instruction and work 

experience in medical 

and health care 

careers (a growing 

demand occupation in 

the area). MICI-AHEC 

provides activities to 

introduce youth in 

grades K-12 to health 

care careers and 

encourages them to 

consider these careers. 

Hired and trained 54 

youth. Classes met all 

day Monday and Friday, 

work experience was 

scheduled for full days 

Tuesday through 

Thursday. The program 

intentionally linked 

classes and work, had 

hands-on learning 

opportunities (e.g. job 

shadowing), and 

conveyed the 

expectation that 

supervisors would be 

mentors. 

Academic goal-setting. Helped 

launch youth toward new 

career pathways and 

strengthen chances of 

employment. 

The director explained, “We 

want to show them all the 

different types of jobs in the 

health care field ... not just 

nursing, jobs like respiratory 

therapy, x-ray technician, or 

even dietician.” 

Goodwill 

Industries 

Non-profit firm, with 

corporate office and 46 

retail stores in 

Indianapolis. IPIC 

board member. Owns 

and operates 

Indianapolis 

Metropolitan High 

School (MET). 

Through YouthWorks 

Indy, Goodwill gained 

a summer workforce 

for its many stores 

while addressing the 

summer learning gap 

for MET students. 

Employed 67 youth to 

work in local Goodwill 

stores. 

Relationship to caring adult, 

introduction to workplace 

discipline. 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

87

Organization Program Strategy Sample Worksite 

Experiences Highlights 

Greater 

Educational 

Opportunities 

(GEO) 

Foundation 

Non-profit firm, 

develops and manages 

charter schools, 

including Fall Creek 

Academy and Fountain 

Square Academy. 

Conducts public 

information campaigns 

about charter schools, 

and produces 

publications for charter 

school officials, 

parents, and students. 

Hired 13 youth, 

prepared and 

distributed marketing 

materials in addition to 

teaching workplace and 

life skills. 

Relationship to caring adult, 

high quality staff and worksite 

supervisors, combined work 

and learning, age & stage 

appropriate tasks. 

“They’re real serious about the 

work, but you still have fun. 

I’ve got a Facebook resume, I 

did a bunch of projects, and I 

learned how to speak up, how 

to ask questions. And I made 

money.” 

Indy Parks Maintains a system of 

206 regional, 

community, and 

neighborhood parks 

throughout Marion 

County, as well as 

recreation facilities, 39 

miles of trails, and 

conservation corridors. 

Hired 83 youth to work 

as trail monitors at two 

dozen Indy Parks 

locations. Youth also 

did research and wrote 

essays on lessons 

learned each week. Biweekly, in-person 

performance reviews. 

Mentoring, leadership, 

opportunity to combine work 

and learning, age appropriate 

tasks. 

“It keeps us active and it 

teaches us a lot. And it looks 

good on a resume when you 

show all the things you’ve 

done.” 

Keys To Work Private, for profit 

staffing and workplace 

development firm. 

Provides pre-screened 

applicants (full and 

part-time, permanent 

and temporary) for 

area employers. Also 

provides transitional 

employment and 

intensive support for 

high-risk populations. 

Hired 34 youth in a 

variety of 

administrative 

positions. 

Mentoring, workplace 

discipline, work readiness 

lessons. 

“This was more demanding 

than I expected. You’ve really 

got to know what you’re doing. 

I’m prepared to work in a 

business setting now.” 
CASE STUDY 

INNOVATING UNDER PRESSURE:

THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT

2009 Summer Youth Employment Initiative 

Phoenix and Maricopa County 

Prepared by: 

The Center for Youth and Communities 

Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

Brandeis University 

Waltham, Massachusetts 

June 2010

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

88
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A special acknowledgement goes to our lead community partners in Phoenix. Without 

their time and attention, this report would not have been possible. Thank you to: 

 Arizona Call-A-Teen Youth Resources, Inc.: Pam Smith, Executive Director, 

Brett Nelson, Grants Manager, Susan Wurth, Program Manager, Special Projects, 

Sharlet Barnett, Program Manager, Adam Soto, Assistant Program Manager, Chris 

Pieper, City of Phoenix Program Lead, Linda Askew, Supervisor/Instructor, 

Courtnee Kinser, Career Advisor, Jessica Sutton, Career Advisor

 City of Phoenix Workforce Connection: Cynthia Spell, Division Deputy Director, 

Tim Valencia, Youth Program Coordinator, Community and Economic Development 

Department

 Maricopa Workforce Connection: Patrick Burkhart, Assistant Director and Bill 

O’Brien, Contract Administrative Supervisor

 Valley of the Sun United Way: Janet Garcia, Vice President, Community Impact

and Julie Sater, Aspire Program Manager, Community Impact Committee

Thank you, too, to the leadership staff of the following businesses and worksites in 

Phoenix and Maricopa County who opened their doors to us and gave generously of their 

time. We are grateful to: 

 Jobs for Arizona Graduates: Dianna May, Field Services Coordinator and Kate 

Robinson, Case Manager. 

 Lotus Wei LLC Flower Essences and Wei of Chocolate LLC: Katie Hess, 

Organic Alchemist, Lisa Reinhardt, CEO and Chocolatier, John Gannone, Operations 

Manager 

 Gateway Community College: Mary Beth James, Director, Children’s Learning 

Center 

 City of Tempe Building Safety Department: Michael Williams, Deputy 

Development Services Manager 

 Gila Bend Community Services Department: Gray Faupel, Community Action 

Case Worker 

 Phoenix Baptist Hospital: Charlotte Riggs, Volunteer Coordinator

 Phoenix Veterans Home: Leslie Goin, Volunteer Coordinator

 Paloma Elementary District #94: Principal Rita Laverdale 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

89
INNOVATING UNDER PRESSURE:

THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT 

2009 Summer Youth Employment Initiative 

Phoenix and Maricopa County 

INTRODUCTION

For Phoenix and Maricopa County, the summer youth employment initiative (SYEI) 

represented a major influx of funds ($5.8 million) and a significant challenge: how to 

design and roll out a summer jobs program in less than four months that could provide 

quality, meaningful work and learning experiences for 1,140 young people. While Phoenix 

and Maricopa County had maintained a modest privately funded summer jobs program 

over the years, the ARRA funding represented the first major infusion of Federal funding 

for summer jobs in over a decade. For the leaders of the city’s and county’s youth and 

workforce development community – Phoenix Workforce Connection (PWC), Maricopa 

Workforce Connection (MWC), private nonprofits, and businesses – the 2009 SYEI called 

for a new way of doing business to set up the partnerships, systems and programs needed 

to provide effective summer work experiences for Phoenix and Maricopa County youth. 

The Phoenix-Maricopa County SYEI was characterized by strong leadership and a 

coordinated regional strategy that provided consistency across urban, suburban, and rural 

areas; a deep partnership base with public, nonprofit, and for-profit partners; and highly 

dedicated, hardworking staff. The local network of partners with a commitment to 

workforce development, youth, and education expanded significantly. Young people 

credited the SYEI with giving them an increased knowledge of career pathways, 

motivation to succeed and a sense of possibility, growing pride and belief in themselves, 

broader and deeper thinking about themselves and others, and the power of a relationship 

with a caring adult. 

The case study that follows is based on interviews and site visits conducted by staff from 

the Center for Youth and Communities at Brandeis University’s Heller School for Social 

Policy and Management, primarily during a two-week site visit in June-July 2009, as well 

as supplemental materials collected during and after the interview process. 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

90
PART I 

RECESSIONARY CONDITIONS: CHALLENGES AND ASSETS 

In recent years, the state of Arizona has experienced high levels of unemployment among 

all workers, and especially among young people. From the onset of the current economic 

recession in January 2008 to July 2009, the unemployment rate among all workers in 

Arizona rose from 4.9% to 9.2%. More than 50% of its population is between 18 and 54 

years of age, which is younger than the national average, and the state is becoming 

younger each year, which presents additional workforce and youth development 

challenges. 

Phoenix is part of Maricopa County, which covers an area as large as the state of 

Massachusetts, including urban, suburban, and extremely rural locations. With a 

population of approximately 1.5 million, Phoenix is the fifth most populous city in the 

United States and its metro area is the country’s 12th largest. The recession has hit both 

Phoenix and Maricopa County hard, with Phoenix entering the recession before many 

other metropolitan areas and likely coming out of it later. Greater Phoenix had the fifth 

largest year-over-year employment loss among large metropolitan areas in April 2009 

(behind Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, and Detroit). 

Furthermore, home foreclosure and bankruptcy rates in Phoenix and Maricopa County are 

among the nation's highest. Construction is suffering, as are other industries such as 

manufacturing and financial services. Commercial vacancy rates are increasing and retail 

sales are falling. Population growth, which had earlier been key to construction and 

increases in income and sales, has slowed. In addition, state and local government 

revenues have dropped dramatically since the spring of 2008, leading to major budget 

cuts at all levels of government. 

In response to the challenging economic times, the Greater Phoenix Economic Council 

implemented a regional economic growth strategy focusing on fields such as health care 

and sustainable/solar technologies. In addition, there is job growth in education and 

government positions. Yet the situation for many residents, in particular the area’s youth, 

remains tenuous. Among other challenges, in any given year, about 5% of the county’s 

youth population (estimated at 513,585 between the ages of eight and seventeen in 

2007) is referred at least once to Juvenile Court. In addition, school graduation rates for 

the city and county, as in other major US cities, are unacceptably low. 

Thus, while the need for the SYEI was clear in Phoenix and Maricopa County. At the same 

time, there were local assets on which to build. 

PART II 

REINVESTMENT AND RECOVERY ACTIONS AND INNOVATIONS: 

LEADERSHIP AND PARTNERSHIP 

It was a tall order for the Phoenix Workforce Connection (PWC) and Maricopa Workforce 

Connection (MWC) to mobilize and coordinate their two, previously separate, workforce 

development systems to engage 537 youth in Phoenix (PWC) and 602 in other parts of 

Maricopa County (MWC) in meaningful work experiences during the 2009 SYEI. PWC and 

MWC had begun to create more seamless processes among the county, city, and service 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

91
providers; however, the 2009 SYEI required an extraordinary degree of collaboration – 

very fast – at every level of leadership and program implementation. As one 

administrator explained, “We were two huge entities and we needed to coordinate in more 

intensive ways. It was challenging .... But we did it!” 

City and county workforce development leaders came together in February 2009 in crosssystem meetings to initiate planning for the SYEI. Joining with other community leaders, 

they recognized that waiting for all to be signed, sealed, and delivered would have 

jeopardized their ability to get the SYEI off the ground, so they moved ahead quickly. In 

the end, it was the commitment, diligence, and hard work of staff and key stakeholders at 

every level within Phoenix’s and Maricopa County’s workforce development systems that 

made the 2009 SYEI a success. 

Harnessing History and Continuity 

In Phoenix and Maricopa County there was little local institutional memory of the large 

summer youth employment programs (SYEPs) of the past. However, they had two 

invaluable sources of information and experience to draw upon during the implementation 

of the 2009 SYEI. 

First, the City of Phoenix had contracted with community-based programs to operate small 

SYEPs after WIA funding had been significantly reduced and Federal SYEP funding virtually 

eliminated. These smaller programs began in 2000. Typically funded by Community 

Development Block Grants and the city’s general purpose funds, these programs served 

500+ youth every summer. They included a program coordinator from one of the 

community-based organizations (CBOs) that understood the systems and steps needed to 

make SYEPs possible. As a result, the CBOs had relationships with numerous businesses 

and worksites – an advantage in getting worksites ready for the broader 2009 SYEI. As 

one administrator noted, “We were not coming out of the chute with this. We had some 

experience to draw on.” 

The second key source of information was the leadership at Arizona Call-A-Teen Youth 

Resources (ACYR), a private, nonprofit, CBO that has offered education and training for 

Phoenix-area teens and young adults since 1976. Under Executive Director Pam Smith, 

ACYR had been part of two demonstration projects aimed at SYEP innovation: Summer 

Beginnings (funded by USDOL in 1993-94) and Summer Transitions (funded by the 

Wallace-Readers’ Digest Funds in 1998-2000). The city and county drew upon Ms. 

Smith’s knowledge about vision, quality programming, and anticipating the challenges 

that are an inevitable part of the process. One administrator explained, “We didn’t have 

the in-house expertise to launch this. [ACYR was] our mentor... Pam gave us guidance 

and helped us see where the problems might come up.” 

Creating a Vision 

A workforce development administrator said: “We were trying to do something 

extraordinary within ordinary rules. The level of effort to pull it off was the most 

extraordinary thing I’ve seen in an awfully long time.” 

All stakeholders – the county’s and city’s workforce development administrators, the 

directors of community service provider organizations, staff leaders, case managers and 

career advisors working directly with the youth – were committed to a shared vision of the 

2009 SYEI. They saw the SYEI as a way to bring together positive youth development 

concepts and economic development to promote community growth with youth as key 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

92
players. They thought that the SYEI could benefit not only youth, but also employers who 

were hurting from the economic downturn. They perceived that the initiative could create 

and leverage opportunities for service providers to provide additional program elements – 

more work experience hours, increased supportive services, greater connections to yearround programming, and deepened relationships with employers, including in the private 

sector. Finally, stakeholders saw the SYEI as an opportunity to demonstrate that 

workforce development systems and city and county economic development efforts could 

be more fully integrated and were, as one administrator said, “agile and responsive 

enough to produce what policymakers consider tangible outcomes worthy of continued 

investments.” 

Aspects of the SYEI drew upon research-based principles of positive community youth 

development – young people and adults working together as partners and viewing each 

other as competent resources to build and sustain just, safe, and healthy communities. 

These principles call upon communities to embrace their roles in youth development, 

including youth who are marginalized. In that vein, Phoenix and Maricopa County 

targeted youth most affected by current economic and social circumstances, such as youth 

offenders, homeless youth, teen parents, youth with disabilities, and out-of-school youth. 

And significant numbers of young people were involved in learning-rich jobs and in 

projects that provided value to their neighborhoods. 

A Phoenix workforce development administrator summarized the vision this way: “We see 

this summer as a way for all funders and stakeholders to see summer youth programming 

as viable and to keep investing in youth, to help them build those job skills and work 

experience. ... The workforce coming up is not large enough and does not have the 

necessary skills. We need to invest in the quality of the workforce coming up and 

demonstrate that these types of programs have value.” 

Staffing for the Summer 

To prepare for the SYEI, PWC and MWC service providers hired well-qualified, summer line 

staff (called “career advisors” or “case managers”) to perform functions such as: 

 Providing a standardized work readiness orientation to youth. 

 Monitoring youths’ attendance, punctuality, job performance, and other “jobkeeping” skills. 

 Monitoring the quality of youths’ work experiences. 

 Handling administrative tasks such as timesheets and paycheck delivery. 

 Serving as problem solvers, mediators, and liaisons among youth, their 

employers/supervisors, and the SYEI. 

 Providing youth with human service supports, such as counseling and case 

management, and making necessary referrals. 

 Functioning as conduits to make sure that all communications were streamlined. 

Service providers particularly sought line staff with the following characteristics: 

 A pre-existing understanding of youth workforce development. Many were drawn 

from the WIA year-round program; some had worked in other SYEPs. 

 Applicable experience with young people. Some had worked for other youthfocused human service programs, including Child Protective Services; others were 

teachers who were unemployed or seeking summer employment. 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

93
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

94

One service provider developed a helpful interview rating matrix to assess candidates. 

Matrix elements were as follows: 

 Direct WIA or JTPA experience 

 Experience with a similar population 

 Case management experience 

 Training/facilitation skills 

 Job development skills 

 Paperwork/documentation abilities 

 Showing initiative/self-starting 

 Mentoring skills 

 Customer service capacity/orientation 

 Community service history 

 Language skills 

 Diversity needs 

 Knowledge of what it takes to do quality work with youth 

 Passion for working with youth 

 Ability to transcend the difficult or frustrating aspects of youth work 

 Skills to engage youth 

 Grasp of the vision for youth and the SYEI 

 Flexibility with fast pace and regular changes 

A Brandeis-facilitated focus group of service provider program directors and managers 

generally agreed that the line staff selection process had been excellent, and that the 

quality of those hired was outstanding. Line staff were clearly devoted to “their kids” and 

put in many more hours supervising and supporting young people than they were paid for. 

For the most part, Phoenix and Maricopa County service providers were easily able to 

recruit high quality and qualified summer career advisors and case managers. The ease of 

attracting qualified people was in no small part due to the faltering economy. Methods 

used to attract line staff included postings at One-Stop Centers, on jobing.com59 (from 

which there was an overwhelming response), and on service providers’ websites. In 

addition, recommendations were sought through formal and informal networking and 

contacts with city and county service and funding providers. 

Although the SYEI’s short timeline left little time for staff training, the quality of the 

people hired enabled most to do an effective job even with limited training. 

Training the Trainers 

Career advisors/case managers did receive training on delivering a pre-program work 

readiness skills orientation to the youth participants. However, although both Maricopa 

County and Phoenix worked from standardized content that fulfilled Arizona WIA 

requirements, their experiences in delivering the training were significantly different. 

 Maricopa County developed a partnership among South Mountain Community 

College, Valley of the Sun United Way, Friendly House, Maricopa Workforce 

Connection, and others to create an innovative work readiness training curriculum. 

This approach produced a five-day, two-credit, college-level course that covered 

content areas such as values, ethics, career exploration, resume writing, and 

 

59 Jobing.com is an online job board for employers and job seekers. It provides this service in several cities and 

states, including Phoenix. 
interviewing skills. A job readiness workbook was created, and pre- and post-tests 

of work readiness were developed and administered. Adjunct community college 

instructors taught the courses, which were targeted to young people ages 14-24. 

One hundred out of 109 registered students completed the first round of the 

course; 50 out of 50 completed the second round. Maricopa’s approach to work 

readiness preparation proved to be efficient and of high quality; engaged the 

young people; resulted in minimal stress among the service providers that utilized 

this model; added the benefit of developing a partnership with the community 

college system; and provided youth with exposure to the community college that 

the youth valued. 

 Phoenix contracted with Junior Achievement (JA) to develop a 20-hour summer 

version of a longer, more ambitious curriculum that JA used in its programs. The 

JA curriculum focused on Career with a Purpose, Success Skills, and the National 

Endowment for Financial Education’s Financial Literacy Program. Two days before 

youth entered the Phoenix SYEI, JA provided a “train-the-trainer” orientation for 

career advisors who would deliver this abridged curriculum to youth. Many 

Phoenix staff interviewed by Brandeis said that the JA training was essentially an 

overview of JA material, rather than a train-the-trainer session, and that the 

curriculum did not work well. They said that in the future they would prefer to 

draw upon work readiness lessons (with which they were already familiar) from 

several Phoenix youth agencies. 

Creating Financial Management Systems 

PWC and MWC agreed that part of their vision for the SYEI was to operate openly and 

transparently, with good systems in place that could anticipate and deal with challenges. 

For the most part, both entities succeeded with the former. However, challenges were 

still plentiful, especially in the areas of financial management and data systems. Still, it 

was a point of pride that young people were rarely affected by systemic difficulties. 

Key players in Phoenix and Maricopa County saw the SYEI as a chance to do great things 

that would benefit young people, families, communities, and employers. Yet, while the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided significant financial resources, it 

presented difficulties of funding accessibility. In this short time period, it was a challenge 

to set up across two large entities and numerous organizations the financial management 

systems to underpin payroll and support payments (e.g., transportation and clothing 

vouchers) for 1,200 young people, handle staff, and deal with other institutional financial 

issues. 

Timing was especially problematic. Federal, state, and city/county government decisions, 

processes, and reactions did not always flow at a rate commensurate with the realities of 

local program design and implementation. Contracts were signed at the last minute or 

late, resulting in local frustration and anxiety; for example, the state’s requirement for 

new (rather than revised or modified) inter-governmental agreements for aspects of the 

SYEI delayed finalization of contracts. 

For locals, risk-taking was often the watchword. Many people and organizations had to do 

significant work prior to authorizations for funds to flow. Systems had to be developed 

and staff had to be hired before contracts were signed. In particular, partner CBOs faced 

cash-flow issues with the SYEI. Cost reimbursement was a big issue for program 

providers who could not get advances. Youth needed up-front vouchers for 

transportation, clothing, and other crucial needs. Funds were needed to float payroll 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

95
demands created by the SYEI. Phoenix, Maricopa County, CBOs, agencies, and their 

payroll companies and banks had to be – and were – fast and creative in order to assure 

that everyone was paid on time. 

The institutional memory present at ACYR (described earlier) made these issues less 

daunting. In the early days of SYEI planning, ACYR took strong stands on several 

financial fronts – especially pushing for common rates of youth pay across the city and 

county and for strategies to deal with payroll cash flow. 

Cash Flow Strategy 

As a result, Phoenix and Maricopa County crafted agreements that standardized the rates 

of pay for young people and developed a process through which agencies sent projected 

expenditures to the city and county in advance of payrolls so that checks could be 

processed based upon those projections. The projected figures provided cash in the bank 

to eventually cover the real payroll. Differences between real and projected payroll 

figures could be adjusted in subsequent pay periods. Yet even with this cash flow 

strategy, struggles occurred. For example, ACYR, the CBO serving the largest number of 

SYEI youth for Phoenix and Maricopa County, saw its payroll increased by $225,000 in one 

period. Unknown to ACYR, its payroll company policy required cash on hand in advance of 

payrolls larger than $100,000, and would not process the payroll without a wire transfer. 

Its bank required special steps to obtain that cash and provide it to the payroll company. 

This situation arose the day before the first payday. It was handled only through adept 

steps by ACYR. (In addition, ACYR’s internal financial management system became much 

more complex, jumping from 19 cost-centers to 30, and it had to cope with SYEI funds 

coming through the city, the county, and the public schools.) 

Managing Data 

Another major challenge was efficient data collection and data entry into multiple 

electronic systems. Despite considerable efforts to facilitate information flow, the 

paperwork for each young person did not always flow at an ideal rate across the many 

institutions involved. Data collection was generally handled well; however, timely 

information sharing often proved a struggle. 

A significant barrier to data collection, compilation, sharing, and ultimate use was the 

State of Arizona’s decision to use an old and very basic version of an electronic 

management information system known as the Virtual One Stop (VOS) System. Arizona 

programs were required to document/record all youth data (from application through 

completion) using the old version of VOS. More advanced VOS systems might have been 

more helpful. To counteract the old VOS dysfunctions, many SYEI providers developed 

dual information systems. Because of the system’s limitations and the decentralized 

nature of the data collected by providers, it is unlikely that Phoenix and Maricopa County 

data will accurately reflect program performance. 

Recruiting, Screening, and Training Youth 

Large numbers of young people applied for the SYEI and were efficiently screened for 

eligibility. Phoenix and Maricopa County’s outreach and recruitment efforts (starting in 

April) were successful. Youth unemployment was very high in Phoenix and Maricopa 

County before 2009; because of the economy, often because of parental job loss, the 

number of eligible youth had increased significantly. Even with the infusion of funds, 

many more eligible youth applied than there were slots available in the 2009 SYEI. 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

96
PWC and MWC, recognizing that they shared many youth program providers and that 

geographic boundaries between city and county were vague, collaborated to reduce 

confusion among youth and their families. As collaborators, PWC and MWC: 

 Centralized outreach and recruitment. 

 Worked together to clarify and explain new eligibility criteria. 

 Organized common outreach presentations and created common application forms 

and practices. 

 Provided common pick-up and drop-off locations for paperwork. 

Furthermore, to create a fair process for choosing among applicants, Phoenix and 

Maricopa County randomly selected the participants from among eligible youth. 

Eligibility Events 

Drawn from previous experience, Maricopa County’s “eligibility events” were a further 

example of innovative practice. These events were preceded by outreach and 

recruitment, advertising, and follow-up calls that helped applicants arrive prepared and 

with necessary documents. Events were scheduled at a variety of times (including on 

Saturdays) and in accessible locations. At the events, SYEI staff processed applications 

and other paperwork and confirmed or denied eligibility in one streamlined process. The 

events were set up with stations that addressed different aspects of the application 

process and were staffed by teams who were adept with each particular aspect. For 

example, the eligibility station had experts who knew the requirements thoroughly and 

could deal with eligibility issues quickly and efficiently. Young people walked their 

applications from station to station. 

Once officially on board, young people participated in work readiness skills training 

sessions (described earlier) during which they: 

 Were oriented to program expectations, employer expectations, job keeping skills, 

and other issues. 

 Completed the TABE Reading Level D Test to identify reading ability and promote 

appropriate job placements. 

 Met with their career advisors/case managers to consider jobs that might interest 

them. 

Job Development and Matching 

Phoenix and Maricopa County found nonprofit organizations, government agencies, and 

private employers to be responsive to the SYEI, and succeeded at developing a wide array 

of jobs for young people. ACYR was able to draw upon its ongoing relationships with 

many Phoenix employers as a starting point; the Maricopa County One-Stop System 

reached out effectively to employers across the rest of the county. In many areas, more 

SYEI job slots were available than there were youth to fill them. This created an 

opportunity for true youth/job matching. 

Attempts were made to pair young people with nearby jobs (using zip codes) that were 

connected to their interests, while at the same time meeting employers’ needs. 

Sometimes, especially in rural areas, fewer opportunities were available. Young people 

whose jobs were not within easy travel distance received travel vouchers. Programs 

developed lengthy, regularly updated listings of available jobs organized geographically. 

To the extent possible, young people were shown these listings and encouraged to choose 

jobs that interested them. As jobs were chosen and removed from the listings, new sites 

and positions were added. 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

97
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

98

In Phoenix, many young people had an array of job choices available. This process 

facilitated youth ownership and motivation. Furthermore, several interviewees noted that 

the SYEI brought a large number of new worksites into the network. This was especially 

true among private-sector employers. (However, a few worksites had to pull out of the 

SYEI due to difficulties caused by the economic downturn.) 

Some job options were simply were not possible to develop due to time constraints. 

Neither Phoenix nor Maricopa County made significant attempts to develop green jobs 

despite a desire to do so. Also, they said that there was inadequate time to thoroughly 

integrate work and academic learning across the SYEI; hence, most programs did not mix 

work experience and classroom activities. 

Preparing and Supporting Worksites 

Since each worksite typically provided supervision, it was important for their staff to 

understand all aspects of the SYEI. After employers agreed to be worksites, the SYEI 

contacted each one to: 

 Define expectations among employers, supervisors, youth, and the SYEI. 

 Determine what employers needed to hire young people (e.g., TB inoculations, 

work clothing, or security screenings). 

 Clarify roles of worksites and supervisors. 

 Explain timesheet, payroll, and other administrative tasks. 

A worksite supervisor’s handbook detailed applicable child labor laws and introduced or 

reinforced the above. 

Once it was clear that one or more youth would be assigned to a worksite, most worksites 

and supervisors received an orientation. However, on occasion, this did not happen, and 

“kids just showed up.” 

Career advisors and case managers regularly contacted and/or visited worksites, 

monitored youth and site performance, and provided counseling and problem-solving 

assistance. Worksites not chosen by young people had to be contacted and encouraged to 

consider placements in the future. 

Meaningful Work Experiences 

Phoenix and Maricopa County strove to give youth a meaningful summer work experience. 

The consistent message conveyed to worksites was that the SYEI was about jobs, 

meaningful work, and training – i.e., that the goal was to make sure that youth have the 

best possible work/training experience, not just an income transfer. Employers and 

supervisors, with career advisors’ and case managers’ support, were expected to reinforce 

the work readiness skills (such as good attendance, punctuality, following supervisor’s 

instructions, and working cooperatively) that young people had been oriented to at the 

beginning of the program. Therefore, at the very least, nearly all jobs were meaningful in 

that youth learned what it takes to successfully hold a job and made connections with 

positive adults.60 Many jobs offered additional levels of meaning, including through 

supervisors who made a difference, employers who helped youth see the bigger 

 

60Attempts were made to address low-quality youth jobs. For example, during the Brandeis team visit, a career 

advisor took a side trip to see a young person who had earlier reported that she was “bored to tears.” The 

career advisor arranged for her transfer to another, higher-quality worksite. 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

99

occupational picture, projects that gave youth responsibility and empowered them, and 

the three internship programs. 

Some jobs that required somewhat repetitive work were nonetheless valuable to the 

employer, provided youth with a paycheck, and led to personal growth for the youth, 

often through a supervisor’s attention. For example, a career advisor said that during 

work readiness training, one young man would not look up from the floor and was 

alternately silent or belligerent. His job mostly involved physical, outdoor work. However, 

because he had a caring supervisor who took an interest in his development, when the 

Brandeis researchers saw this young man, who was working on a crew preparing for the 

town’s July 4th party, he smiled, made eye contact, approached the team, greeted them 

warmly, and offered to shake hands. His worksite supervisor said that this young man 

was homeless and living in a motel, bartering to keep his room, and had experienced few 

successes, having been fired from most of his fast food jobs. Yet, working with his 

supervisor and other staff, he had come out of his shell. All at the site agreed that it was 

his worksite supervisor – with a quiet but firm, “tell it like it is” style – who had made the 

difference. The supervisor had what this young man needed to reconnect with the world. 

Another supervisor who made a difference was an unexpected match with a young woman 

working at a childcare center. The teen was interested in nursing, but since no nursing 

positions were available, she was assigned to her second choice at the childcare center. 

She proved adept at working with the children. Her supportive supervisor described her 

as “having a knack” and talked about her wonderful work ethic. The teen enjoyed her 

experience, saying, “I’m like family here. I really like it.” By the end of the summer she 

was seriously considering the field of early childhood development as a career. 

Furthermore, the childcare center was interested in hiring her as a permanent employee 

on a schedule that might work for her.61 

Several youth and staff reported career exploration opportunities (often informal) at a 

number of worksites, typically through the efforts of supervisors, coworkers, or career 

advisors/case managers. For example, in addition to doing her regular, somewhat 

repetitive duties, one young woman working for a city government department was 

periodically sent into the field with department professionals to observe and assist them. 

She learned first-hand the importance of the department’s work; what each person did, as 

well as why and how; and how her job supported the department. She found this 

experience meaningful and enlightening. 

Two examples of projects that were meaningful because of the amount of responsibility 

given to youth participants were at a rural elementary school and at ACYR’s Phoenix 

campus. At the school, two young women were assigned to help prepare for fall. Because 

of budget cuts, the school had minimal summer custodial and administrative support. 

Two school administrators who were already swamped with other work would have had to 

deal with all aspects of preparation. They gave the two teens a broad array of 

responsibilities. One administrator said, “Without these two girls, we’d have been dead in 

the water! We couldn’t have handled this crucial work without them. They were willing to 

do most anything, and they were amazingly fast learners!” At ACYR’s Phoenix campus, a 

group of youth was put in charge of converting an underutilized space in an ACYR building 

into a teen room. Supported by a group facilitator, the young people conceived, planned, 

 

61 Many employers said that they would hire SYEI youth after the summer if money were available to do so. 
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

100

and implemented the conversion and took over management of the project. Teams 

researched teen rooms at other youth organizations, interviewed other teenagers to learn 

what might attract them to a teen room, and raised money for the conversion. To cap off 

the project, the group conducted a formal presentation and question-and-answer session 

about what they had done with an audience of adults. 

Three internship programs developed by the City in collaboration with Gateway 

Community College represented an innovative partnership with resource leveraging (five 

sources of funding including ARRA funds) and a strong emphasis on meaningful work and 

learning. These internships were offered to a limited number of youth who had serious 

interests in entrepreneurship, advanced manufacturing/robotics, or healthcare. The 

programs served SYEI eligible youth as well as other youth (depending on funding 

stipulations). Gateway Community College classroom activities were integrated with 

related work experiences, field trips, and in some cases project-based learning. Youth 

enrolled in the robotics internship program participated in a “Robotics Tour” during which 

they visited three companies that used robotics and advanced manufacturing approaches 

in very different ways. In the entrepreneurship internship program, 26 youth were placed 

in internships at small businesses so that they could experience the realities of day-to-day 

operations and relate these experiences to their classes and business plans. They 

attended Gateway Community College classes three days per week (for which they 

received five college credits), and worked two days a week at worksites throughout 

Phoenix. Classes focused on developing a small business. In small group, project-based 

learning experiences, young people developed real-life plans for businesses of their 

choice. All 26 completed the program with business plans for the ventures of their 

choosing.62

 

62 See Appendix 1 for more details regarding youth outcomes and experiences.
Entrepreneurship Internship at Lotus Wei and Wei of Chocolate: 

Four youth served as interns at Lotus Wei and Wei of Chocolate, two companies acting as one 

worksite for Phoenix’s entrepreneurship internship program. Their mission is to “create organic 

products promoting joy and awareness.” Their small building in an under-resourced residential 

neighborhood is full of flower essence products and boxes of colorfully wrapped chocolates. 

The employers, who had benefited from having a business mentor through a Phoenix program, 

wanted to give back and “make a difference, not just for the youth, but also for their family 

and community.” It helped to know that the City and ACYR would find and prepare the youth. 

Although not trained in youth development or teaching, the employers successfully embedded 

academic and life-skills learning in the interns’ activities. The youth were involved not only in 

production activities (e.g., labeling, filling bottles, and packaging), but also creative projects 

(e.g., creating their own mists and planting a garden). They learned how to talk to people 

about the products at the local farmers’ market. They learned that products are not always 

made with chemicals and in industrial settings. One attended a meeting with the employers’ 

mentor, to learn about the relationship and see how important it is “to find people who are 

smart in different ways than you are.” The youth learned about company practices, including 

taking shoes off inside, participating in meditation and breathing moments, and reflecting on 

what they had learned and experienced. 

Used to operating independently, the supervisors saw that they needed to act on “teachable 

moments.” For example, when they noticed “negative talk and energy” during the interns’ 

work as a team, the employers interceded to bring out the positive, then redirected the youth 

into more one-on-one projects with closer supervision. They helped one youth learn that if 

something goes wrong, he could talk it through, work collaboratively to solve the problem, and 

do things differently next time. 

One of the employers said, “Two of the young people told us this summer was life-changing. I 

think it is that they felt genuinely cared about. They appreciate having people interact with 

them and not broadcast down to them.” 

Support Services/Other Connections 

The SYEI enabled programs to provide resources such as transportation and clothing 

vouchers. Transportation (especially in rural areas) and clothing appropriate for work 

were particularly common needs. Many young people mentioned how important these 

supports were and that access to a summer job only would have proved inadequate. 

In one innovative approach, Jobs for Arizona Graduates (JAG) organized a shopping day 

before work readiness training started. Case managers helped with budgets, lists of 

clothes, and clothing vouchers, and took young people shopping in groups. 

Benefits of the SYEI 

Workforce development systems, service providers, employers, worksite supervisors, and 

the participating youth all benefited from the SYEI. Stakeholders and institutions pulled 

together as never before to accomplish their goals. The intensity of the timetable moved 

people and organizations toward a more open, collaborative model. New opportunities 

arose for cooperation and partnership development, including an expanding network of 

public and private sector employer partners and steps toward better integration of 

workforce development efforts with other economic development efforts. 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

101
Employers and worksite supervisors described the value of having youth perform critical 

functions that otherwise would not have been accomplished or would have been assigned 

to already overworked and overloaded staff. Employers clearly stated that without the 

SYEP, they would not have had the resources to hire additional staff people given the 

economic times and budget constraints. Many also talked about the benefit of giving back 

and helping the next generation. 

Youth experienced important benefits that will influence their futures. For example, as a 

worksite supervisor explained, “I see how far they’ve come in terms of how they present 

themselves and their career goals. I see as feedback to me that I helped them to take 

steps to growth and their future.” Another said, “You see some kids blossom in a short 

time. It’s very exciting to see the kids growing.” 

The young people interviewed specified the following benefits of their summer 

experiences: 

 Increased knowledge of career pathways and options. 

 Motivation to succeed and a sense of possibility. 

 Growing belief and pride in self. 

 Broader and deeper thinking about self and others. 

 The power of a relationship with a caring adult. 

Increased knowledge of career pathways and options. At some worksites, career 

education and exploration was a key design element (such as the internship program with 

Gateway Community College). For example, one youth in the healthcare internship 

program explained, “I didn’t know there was so much to the medical field. The staff will 

give you advice. If it’s a field that’s growing [they’ll tell you] what steps you have to take. 

All you have to do is ask. It opened up more options.” 

Even worksites without an explicit emphasis on career pathways often provided informal 

opportunities, typically through exposure to various jobs and through contact and 

conversations with supervisors and other adults at the worksite. Many of the youth 

interviewed described how they were learning about career options and pathways. One 

young woman in a small rural town with limited opportunities explained, “If not for this 

program, I’d still only be volunteering and not getting anywhere. Now I see that maybe I 

can get the skills to get a job, and get my son and me the things we need.” She was able 

to take advantage of a training program in Phoenix that she would not likely have been 

eligible for as a volunteer. 

Motivation to succeed and a sense of possibility. Many of the youth interviewed talked 

about how their experiences motivated them to want to succeed and gave them a sense of 

possibility. A young woman participating in the entrepreneurial internship program said, 

“I learned that having positive energy with who you are working with is important. With 

positive energy flowing ... slowly but for sure you will achieve.” Another teen explained 

how his experience motivated him despite an earlier lack of confidence: “It has made me 

want to work harder at school. I’m a dropout so it’s psychological – I think that I can’t do 

it, but then I remember I am smart and working here has given me that extra push.” 

Sometimes this sense of possibility turned into reality in the form of permanent 

employment (see box: Success in a Small Town).

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

102
Growing belief and pride in self. Several of the young people interviewed described how 

the SYEI helped them believe in what they could accomplish and made them feel proud. 

For one teen, this newfound positive self-image was particularly important because of 

personal difficulties she was experiencing in her home life. She explained, “My family 

didn’t believe in me. And so I’m proud I am doing this and not sitting home doing 

nothing. I am showing my grandmother that I can make it and she is proud of me. It 

changed things for me.” 

A young single mother described how her summer experience affected her thinking: “I 

think it’s made me a stronger person. I respect people more. Life is precious. We only 

have one life and we have to take it as it is.” 

For another teen, the process of believing in herself came from overcoming her fears of 

the unknown and of the elderly veterans at the Veteran’s Home. She explained, “At first, 

I was scared. I wasn’t used to seeing all that happens here. It was hard and I didn’t 

know how to be friends with them. But then I got used to it. Now I know them. I love 

them. They are so sweet and I love talking to them. They have lots of stories to tell.” 

Success in a Small Town 

The SYEP provided a new opportunity for a 20-year-old high school dropout, with no formal work 

history, who is a single mother living in a very rural area of Maricopa County. During the week-long 

work SYEP readiness skills training, she created her first resume and was placed at a local 

Community Action Program as a Community Service Assistant. The program director reported that 

this young woman is well-respected, has grown in maturity, and has developed her office and 

interpersonal skills. Further, she functioned as the central point of contact for the collection of 

timesheets for all of the town’s SYEP participants. After a month of strong work performance, the 

supervisor said she was an asset to the agency, and recommended her for an opportunity to receive 

data entry training. The young woman is also slated to become a regular employee. To assist with 

her transition, the service provider extended her hours of SYEP participation. Since she had not 

completed her high school education, a condition of her ongoing employment will be to obtain her 

GED. She has started her studies and the Community Action Program will pay for her GED testing. 

Her supervisor expects her to do well. 

Broader and deeper thinking about self and others. Some youth spoke powerfully about 

the opportunity to rethink how they view the world and reflect on their own behaviors. 

One young woman in a hospital setting said, “I used to see [elderly people] as sick, 

disabled. But now it makes me love them more and treat them with more respect. See 

all they’ve done in life. And so many of them here have no one. One man hadn’t seen his 

daughter in ten years. How can they just be left like that? It breaks my heart.” Her 

coworker explained what she has learned about prejudice and her responsibilities to the 

patients, regardless of their views, and to herself: “I think it makes us stronger. Some 

people we have to take care of don’t like us cause of how we look or how we talk but 

everyone needs our help .... We have to keep an open mind and can’t be prejudiced to 

people we are helping. I have grown in that area.” 

The power of a relationship with a caring adult. Young people described making strides in 

learning, motivation, and maturity when they worked closely with adults who like them, 

have confidence in them, and are genuinely interested in their progress. Caring nonparental adults facilitated the youths’ progress towards meeting the world’s expectations, 

challenges, and requirements. The key element was mutual engagement of the youth and 

adult as they worked together to solve problems and achieve results. The relationship 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

103
developed naturally as competent, interested adults worked closely with the youth in joint 

pursuit of achievable goals. 

Many of the young people interviewed talked about how they felt encouraged and 

supported by adults as part of their summer experience, and that this had an impact on 

their confidence and expectations. One young woman participating in a healthcare 

internship explained, “I didn’t really think I could do anything, and then they gave me 

responsibility here. Just knowing they trusted me for that makes me feel good... more 

confident.” 

A compelling example of the power of a relationship with a caring adult was the young 

man, described earlier, whose Parks and Recreation supervisor made such a difference. 

Conclusion and Recommendations 

 Maximize and sustain the power of the Maricopa County – Phoenix collaboration. 

The efforts to collaborate on a vision and implementation added impressive power 

to the area’s summer experience. This work paves the way for future 

collaboration, inter-institutional cooperation, and creative extensions of youth 

employment programming. 

 Leverage and build upon the 2009 experience. The 2009 SYEI started with limited 

institutional memory guiding it, but now city and county leaders have more 

knowledge and capacity to build upon. New systems are in place, and their 

limitations are known. Learning has been significant and in many cases needed 

improvements are clear. A future SYEI could be much improved based upon the 

2009 experience. 

 Use newfound collaborative mindsets among service providers to create a broadbased vision and action plan for health care, green jobs, and summer 

opportunities. Take advantage of, and partner with, the Greater Phoenix Economic 

Council’s regional growth strategy focused on health care and sustainable and solar 

technologies. Work further with organizations and companies on these high growth 

job opportunities. 

 Improve worksites’ abilities to make connections between work and learning. 

 Make more explicit connections for youth between the job skills and social 

development concepts they are learning and their futures (reflection component). 

 Enhance connections between summer and year-round programming especially for 

targeted populations such as out-of-school youth. 

 Improve connections to green jobs. 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

104
PHOENIX AND MARICOPA COUNTY 

APPENDIX 1 

Program Strategy Sample Worksite 

Experiences Organization Highlights 

Management and Leadership 

Phoenix 

Workforce 

Connection 

(PWC) 

Maricopa 

Workforce 

Connections 

(MWC) 

New coordinated regional 

strategy that provided 

consistency across urban, 

suburban and, for the first 

time, very rural areas. 

Deep partnership base 

and highly dedicated 

staff. 

Hired high quality career 

advisors or case 

managers to provide work 

readiness orientation, 

monitoring, timesheets 

and check delivery. 

Sponsored innovation 

“eligibility events”. 

Contracted with a broad array 

of worksite providers including 

CBOs, college, school, 

business. 

PWC contracted with Junior 

Achievement to develop a 

progressive work readiness 

orientation and train-thetrainers. 

MWC developed partnership 

with South Mt. Community 

College, United Way and 

others to create innovative 

work readiness training for 

career advisors and case 

managers (college creditbearing). 

“We were two huge 

entities and we needed 

to coordinate in more 

intensive ways. It was 

challenging – but we 

did it!” 

“We were trying to do 

something 

extraordinary with 

ordinary rules. The 

level of effort to pull 

this off was the most 

extraordinary thing I’ve 

seen in an awfully long 

time.” 

Education Partners and Worksites 

Gateway 

Community 

College 

Offered small business 

internships to 26 youth 

interested in 

entrepreneurship, 

robotics and health care. 

Exposed youth to 

experiences by infusing 

“all aspects of an 

industry” with meaningful 

work experiences. 

Entrepreneurship program 

coupled Gateway 

Community College 

classes three days/week 

with experiential learning 

two days/week. 

All 26 youth completed 

the program with 

business plans for 

ventures of their own 

choosing. 

Entrepreneurship: 

Lotus Wei & Wei of Chocolate

are two combined companies 

acting as one worksite for the 

entrepreneurship interns. 

Their mission is to “create 

organic products creating joy 

and awareness.” 

Four young people participated 

in production activities & sales 

of creative products made with 

flower essences and chocolate 

created for “the mind, body 

and soul.” 

Children’s Learning Center 

Exposed youth to health 

related careers, included early 

childhood development. One 

student for example acted as 

an assistant to the Head 

teacher in a classroom setting. 

Increased knowledge of 

career pathways and 

options. 

Motivation to succeed 

and a sense of 

possibility. 

Growing belief and 

pride in self. 

Broader and deeper 

thinking about self and 

others. 

The power of a 

relationship with a 

caring adult. 

“Young people have told 

us this summer has 

been life changing.” 

“I learned that having 

positive energy with 

who you are working 

with is important with 

positive energy flowing 

Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

105
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

106

Organization Program Strategy Sample Worksite 

Experiences Highlights 

Gateway 

Community 

College 

(continued) 

Robotics: 

Some youth in Phoenix’s 

Entrepreneurship Program 

focusing on robotics 

participated in a field trip that 

showed them multiple 

corporations using robotics in 

different ways and contexts.

– slowly but for sure 

you will achieve.” 

“Learning new ways of 

being is exciting and 

empowering.” 

One supervisor 

remembered, “the other 

things I was going to do 

with my time could 

wait” upon realizing 

how valuable this 

experience was to the 

young people. 

“I didn’t know there 

was so much to the 

medical field!” 

“I’m like family here. I 

really like it.” 

“If it were not for the 

program, I would still 

be volunteering and not 

getting anywhere.” 

Arizona CallA-Teen Youth 

Resources 

(ACYR) 

In-house worksite and 

provided training and 

innovation work-based 

and project-based 

learning opportunities. 

ACYR’s Phoenix Campus 

A group of youth was put in 

charge of converting an 

underutilized space in an ACYR 

building into an attractive 

“Teen Room.” Supported by a 

group facilitator, young people 

conceived, planned, 

implemented, and eventually 

managed the project. 

Researched other teen rooms, 

interviewed teens, raised 

money to support the 

conversion, and built their own 

Teen Room. The project 

culminated with a one-hour 

formal presentation to adults, 

with Q & A, about what the 

youth had accomplished. 

Meaningful work, caring 

adults, safe places, 

embedded academic 

relationship with quality 

staff and supervisors, 

project based learning 

with marketable skills, 

age & stage appropriate 

placement and tasks. 

“It has made me want 

to work harder at 

school. I’m a dropout so 

it’s psychological – I 

think that I can’t do it, 

but then I remember I 

am smart and working 

here has given me that 

extra push.” (ACYR)
Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

107

Program Strategy Sample Worksite 

Experiences Organization Highlights 

Paloma 

Elementary 

School 

In-house worksite. 

Provided exposure to all 

aspects of elementary 

administration tasks. 

Students were assigned to 

support efforts of the 

administrators. They learned 

what it took to open and run 

an elementary school. 

Leadership, mentorship, 

meaningful work, 

combined work and 

learning. 

“Without these girls, 

we’d have been dead in 

the water. We couldn’t 

have handled this 

crucial work without 

them” reported one 

supervisor.

Gila Bend 

Town Hall, 

Gila Bend, AZ 

Created a community 

service assistanceship/ 

internship and 

professional development 

opportunity for a single 

mom – a high school 

dropout – with no formal 

work history in rural 

Arizona for the first time. 

Community Action Agency Meaningful work, high 

quality relationships, 

youth development 

principals in place, 

combined work and 

learning to acquire 

marketable skills, 

partnerships and 

coordination to create 

systems of supports 

and opportunity. 

“If not for this program, 

I’d still only be 

volunteering and not 

getting anywhere. Now 

I see that maybe I can 

get the skills to get a 

job, and get my son 

and me the things we 

need.” 

Jobs for AZ 

Graduates 

(JAG) 

Offered support services. Organized support services 

such as “shopping day” before 

work readiness training. Case 

managed help with budgets, 

lists of clothes, clothing 

vouchers and took youth on 

shopping trip.

After a month on the 

job, the supervisor said 

she was “an asset to 

the agency” and 

recommended her for 

an opportunity to 

receive further data 

entry training. She is 

also slated to become a 

regular employee when 

the summer WIA 

program ends.